The majority incorrectly held that the evidence met this threshold. When a person does not own the vehicle, no evidence has been presented to establish hold long the accused has occupied the vehicle, and especially when the vehicle is jointly occupied, the State must present evidence that links the person to the methamphetamine to prove knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.
Other jurisdictions have held in similar scenarios that the evidence was insufficient to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal. Like Fischer, these courts had to determine the “knowingly” element of possession when the defendant’s knowledge was not determined on the basis of his exclusive ownership or dominant control of the entire premises. Like in Aponte where the conviction was reversed because the prosecution did not produce enough evidence for a jury to reasonably conclude that the occupants knew drugs were in the vehicle, the prosecution in Fischer produced no direct evidence to prove the “knowingly” element. Similar to Aponte where the State cited no authority for the proposition that a jury could infer knowledge of the drugs …show more content…
In Janhz, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove the defendant possessed the drugs by showing that the defendant removed keys from his pocket and opened the truck where the drugs were found. The majority in Fischer reasoned that possession was proven beyond a reasonable doubt by Fischer producing the registration of the vehicle. While the court did not cite to any authority supporting that a person possesses a vehicle when they were able to produce the registration, it held “[i]t is clear in the facts of this case that Fischer had dominion or control over the vehicle.” No further analysis was put forth to determine if Fischer’s possession of the vehicle was supported by statutory authority or case