Cerrato-Molina v. State, 115 A.3d 785

On June 13, 2008, Detective Jackson saw a white Jeep with two occupants (driver Ramos; passenger Cerrato‑Molina) parked, observed them drinking, and then watched the Jeep flee when approached.
During the high‑speed flight, multiple objects (including three baggies later shown by stipulation to contain controlled substances) were thrown out the front passenger window; the Jeep was later disabled and both occupants arrested.
The police recovered the baggies along the chase route; lab results (stipulated) identified marijuana, crack cocaine, and cocaine hydrochloride.
At trial the State’s case rested solely on Detective Jackson’s testimony and the stipulated chemist’s report; the State dropped distribution charges and proceeded on simple possession counts for each drug.
Cerrato‑Molina moved for judgment of acquittal arguing the State failed to prove he possessed the drugs (no direct proof he threw or held them); the trial court denied the motion and the jury convicted him of three possession counts.
On appeal the sole contention was legal sufficiency: whether the evidence permitted submission to the jury and supported convictions for possession (actual or constructive; joint or exclusive).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict for possession of CDS	Cerrato‑Molina: State never placed CDS in his hands; no direct proof he threw the baggies; reasonable hypothesis driver alone threw them — verdict rests on speculation.	State: Evidence supports permissible inferences (flight, objects ejected from passenger side, two occupants, proximity, shared use) establishing actual or constructive and joint possession.	Affirmed. Evidence legally sufficient: jury could infer Cerrato‑Molina either threw the baggies (actual possession) or was in joint/constructive possession with driver.
Role of circumstantial inferences vs. Handy rule	Cerrato‑Molina: Because evidence was circumstantial, Handy requires rejection where a reasonable innocent hypothesis (driver threw) exists.	State/Court: Handy applies to an entire circumstantial case at the acquittal stage, not to drawing permissible intermediary inferences; permitted inferences may be weighed into the State’s version of the case.	Held for State: drawing reasonable inferences (even if alternative inferences are possible) is proper; when assessing sufficiency appellate review takes the version most favorable to the State, including permitted inferences.

Jason v. State, 9 Md. App. 102 (possession may be joint; sole possession not required)
Folk v. State, 11 Md. App. 508 (list of factors supporting joint/constructive possession: proximity, visibility/knowledge, ownership, mutual use)
Smith v. State, 415 Md. 174 (possession may be actual or constructive and joint; inferences from presence and proximity upheld)
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (reasonable to infer common enterprise and shared dominion over drugs found in small car)
Larocca v. State, 164 Md. App. 460 (applying Pringle and Folk — occupants of a small car may be inferred to share knowledge and use)
Handy v. State, 175 Md. App. 538 (circumstantial‑evidence rule: entire circumstantial case cannot be consistent with a reasonable innocent hypothesis)