Court Opinion

ID: 9851272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:09:42.055784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:52.795040
License: Public Domain

HALL, Chief Justice
(concurring and dissenting):
I do not join the Court in overturning the convictions of defendant Clive Fox because I am not persuaded that the evidence is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
This Court’s standard of review when faced with a claim of insufficiency of the *321evidence is to view the evidence, and the facts reasonably to be inferred therefrom, in the light most favorable to the determination made by the trier of fact.1 We will only interfere when the evidence is so lacking and insubstantial that a reasonable person could not possibly have determined guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.2
The evidence was that defendant’s identification card and mail addressed to him were found in the residence. Phone service was in his name. The neighbors testified that defendant had lived there with defendant Gary Fox over a period of three years and that they had constructed the greenhouse which was only accessible through a door off the kitchen. No one else but defendant was identified as living in the house. Items of men’s clothing were in the bedrooms, dirty dishes were in the sink, beds were unmade, and food was stocked in cupboards and in the refrigerator, all of which indicated the house was used as a dwelling.
The entire house was a virtual marijuana production center. The attached greenhouse was filled with growing marijuana plants which made the premises uncomfortably humid. The doorway from the kitchen afforded an unobstructed view of the greenhouse and its contents. A large bag of harvested marijuana was found in the kitchen, a common area of the house likely to be used daily by the occupants.
It was certainly reasonable to infer that not just one but both defendants knew of the greenhouse and its contents, had the power and intent to exercise dominion and control over the marijuana, and were jointly engaged in growing the marijuana and holding it for sale.
I would affirm the convictions of both defendants.
HOWE, J., concurs in the concurring and dissenting opinion of Chief Justice HALL.

. State v. McCardell, Utah, 652 P.2d 942, 945 (1982).

. Id.