Sufficient evidence for a meth possession conviction; MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(i); Constructive possession; People v Hardiman; The prosecution’s burden; People v Davenport

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to establish defendant’s constructive possession, the court affirmed his meth possession conviction. It noted that he “owned the vehicle containing those unlawful substances discovered within his arm’s reach, and ‘[c]lose proximity to contraband in plain view is evidence of possession.’” Further, he “sent two incriminating messages, referencing what they were stored in (a ‘clear container’) and where (in ‘the center console’), advising something should be ‘throw[n] away,’ and asserting that another’s ‘shit [wa]s safe.’” The court concluded this “‘circumstantial evidence and [the] reasonable inferences’ that can be drawn from it” established that at the very least, he “knowingly possessed” meth. Defendant relied on “the so-called ‘Davenport rule’ from” the court’s 1970’s case law in arguing that the prosecution had the “burden to prove ‘there is no innocent theory possible’ other than guilt.” But the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Hardiman made it clear that the “‘prosecution need not negate every reasonable theory consistent with the defendant’s innocence, but need merely introduce evidence sufficient to convince a reasonable jury in the face of whatever contradictory evidence the defendant may provide’ and that more than one person can possess a controlled substance.” Further, given the circumstantial evidence presented, the court gave “no credence to defendant’s argument that he was not the registered owner of the vehicle, that neither fingerprint nor DNA evidence were presented, and that there were no drug-sale proceeds on defendant’s person[.]”