The possession statute (Utah code 58–37–8(2)(a)(i)) provides for a few affirmative defenses for a possession charge. These include things like the holder had a “valid license to possess controlled substances,” the person “was the subject of medical research conducted by a holder of a valid license,” and the person “reasonably believes that the person or another person is experiencing an overdose event.”
Although Utah's drug possession statute does not explicitly contain an innocent possession defense, it implicitly includes an innocent possession provision.
The innocent possession defense applies to many drug cases in Utah. Under this defense, the defendant is not required to prove that he or she innocently possessed the substance. Instead, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant did not innocently possess the drug. In other words, the State has the burden of proof at all times.
The innocent possession defense applies to charges such as possession of a controlled substance, possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and even the possession of firearm statutes in Utah.
If you were charged with felony possession of a controlled substance in Utah, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney in Salt Lake City, Utah, to find out more about the innocent possession defense.
We can use this defense to help negotiate a better outcome in your case or fight for the "not guilty" verdict at trial. Under this defense, the jury must decide whether the prosecution has proven that the defendant did not innocently possess the controlled substance, chemical substance, or counterfeit substance.
Let us put our experience to work for you. Call (801) 532-5297 today.
The Controlled Substance Act (58–37–2(1)(ii)) defines “possession” using terms such as “retaining” and “maintaining,” and it provides that possession may be inferred if the person charged has “the ability and the intent to exercise dominion and control over” the item.
This definition does not, however, clarify whether the term “possess,” as it is used in the possession statute, includes the type of innocent possession at issue here—temporary possession for the purpose of returning a controlled substance to its lawful owner.
As explained by the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Miller, 2008 UT 61, ¶ 21, 193 P.3d 92, 96 (2008):
“Strictly construing the term 'possess' to include every type of possession, whether culpable or innocent, contradicts the legislature's directive to avoid strictly construing the code, and it is contrary to the policy goals of safeguarding faultless conduct and promoting justice. This is most apparent in the many examples of injustices that may result from strictly construing the term 'possess.'
A daughter who no longer lives at home but who picks up her sick mother's prescription medication and drives it to her mother's home, for example, could be guilty of felony possession under a strict construction of the term 'possess…..' [A] house guest who inadvertently leaves a prescription bottle of pills at a homeowner's home creates an impossible situation for the homeowner wherein she could do nothing short of immediately fleeing her home to avoid 'possessing' the pills.
Because construing the term 'possess' to include brief, innocent possession contradicts the legislature's interpretative guidelines and creates a myriad of absurd prosecutorial possibilities, we hold that the term 'possess,' as it is used in section 58–37–8(2)(a)(i), excludes transitory possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of returning it to its lawful owner. That is, we hold that the possession statute implicitly includes the defense of innocent possession.”
Across the United States, courts that recognize an innocent possession defense cite public policy reasons for doing so. The main public policy reason for the innocent possession defense is to “prevent a conviction for an innocent act.” People v. E.C., 195 Misc.2d 680, 761 N.Y.S.2d 443, 445 (Sup.Ct.2003).
For instance, in People v. E.C., the New York appellate court recognized an innocent possession defense. The court explained that a juror who handles illegal drugs as part of a review of the evidence would be guilty of possession under a strict interpretation of the possession statute. Id.
The State of California also recognizes the innocent possession defense and applies it to “fleeting and transitory” possession of illegal drugs “for the purpose of disposal.” People v. Martin, 25 Cal.4th 1180, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 599, 25 P.3d 1081, 1088–89, n. 9 (2001).
The courts in Utah have explained that the Utah legislature recognizes the statutory defense of justification that protects a person from prosecution conduct that is “justified for any ... reason under the laws of this state.” Utah code 76–2–401(1)(e). The broad catchall provision under the innocent possession defense allows the courts to make sure that justice is done.
If you were charged with possession of a controlled substance, contact our experienced criminal defense team. We have decades of experience, and we will help you build the best defense for your case.
Call us for a free consultation today at (801) 532-5297.
