Court’s Refusal to Give the Circumstantial Evidence Jury Instruction Required Reversal—No Direct Evidence Defendant Was Aware of Cocaine Hidden in Vehicle
The Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s conviction determining the trial court erred when it refused to charge the jury on circumstantial evidence. The case was based upon the constructive possession of a brick of cocaine found in a hidden compartment in a vehicle. Defendant was not the owner of the vehicle, was not driving the vehicle, and was not the target of police surveillance:
It is well established that a “defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence instruction must be allowed when proof of guilt rests exclusively on circumstantial evidence” … . Constructive possession can be proven directly or circumstantially, and the necessity of a circumstantial evidence charge should be resolved on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the proof connecting defendant to the drugs was wholly circumstantial. Defendant was not the owner or driver of the vehicle, nor was he the target of the surveillance operation, and there was no direct evidence that he was aware of the hidden compartment or that he exercised dominion and control over the concealed cocaine… . People v Santiago, 204, CtApp 11-26-13