In innocent possession cases, it is crucial to determine whether a defendant had knowledge and control over the contraband in question. This can mean the difference between years in prison and freedom. It is also important to differentiate between actual possession and constructive possession. Defendants who are accused of possessing contraband should consult with an attorney to determine if they may be innocent.
Defendants can claim innocent possession if they have had the contraband in their possession for a limited time. For example, if a person is suspected of possessing a firearm and he was in a state of panic, his possession of the gun could be deemed innocent. This defense is strong, and it can help you avoid conviction.
In one case, a defendant was convicted of trafficking in methamphetamine. However, his attorney was able to convince the jury that he found the drugs in a sock and had tried to contact the authorities to turn the items in. The trial judge was unwilling to instruct the jury on the defense of innocent possession, but the state high court overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial.
Utah courts recognize the defense of innocent possession in many drug cases. The state must prove that the defendant was in possession of the drugs, not that he was aware of the possession. However, the state must prove that the person had intent to distribute the drugs or attempted to distribute them. This defense can be used in cases involving the possession of a controlled substance, drug possession with intent to sell or distribute, and weapons possession statutes.
Possession is a broad legal concept. In a possession case, the state must prove that a person had knowledge and control of the place where the contraband was found. This requirement protects innocent people from wrongful convictions, and ensures that people with criminal records may be able to avoid felony charges. This rule is known as the affirmative-links rule. It protects innocent bystanders who are in proximity to the contraband.
To prove that a defendant had knowledge and control of the contraband, the government must prove intent and power to control it. In some cases, the defendant may have picked up the contraband, but it is not certain whether he had the power to control it. Additionally, the defendant may have a reasonable belief that the contraband did not belong to him. The degree of visibility of the contraband is also crucial. Moreover, the court considers the ability of the prosecution to link the defendant to the location.
In some cases, an innocent person may be falsely accused of possessing child porn without the intention of doing so. This may happen if an angry person has downloaded child porn on a computer, framed the victim, or otherwise tipped off police. In this scenario, an innocent possession defense may be possible.