Rivera v. State, 240 A.3d 77

Rivera was convicted after a bench trial for manufacture/possession of crack, possession of heroin, Suboxone, and possession of paraphernalia; sentenced to 12 years on manufacture count.
Trooper Dowling executed a no‑knock warrant at an Elkton apartment; Rivera was in one bedroom with a 16‑year‑old; an adult couple in the other bedroom.
Items seized from Rivera’s bedroom: $778 in a wallet (Rivera admitted the cash), mail addressed to Rivera, a Suboxone strip in the wallet and additional strips under the bed, 18 small heroin baggies and a bag of crack under the bed, a Pyrex cup with crack residue in the microwave, measuring cups/spoon/baking soda in plain view, and laboratory evidence noting two digital scales.
The trooper testified to the physical evidence but did not describe the scales in his testimony; the lab report listing scales was admitted.
After the defense’s motion for judgment of acquittal was largely denied and the juvenile witness invoked her right not to testify, the court delivered its verdict nine days later. In announcing guilt, the court referred to certain factual details that were not in evidence; Rivera did not object at trial.
On appeal Rivera argued (1) the court relied on facts not in evidence and (2) the evidence was insufficient. The Court of Special Appeals held the first claim unpreserved and the second claim without merit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court relied on facts not in evidence in announcing its verdict	Rivera: court referenced facts outside the record, requiring reversal	State: claim not preserved—no contemporaneous objection below	Unpreserved. Contemporaneous‑objection rule applies to claims that the court relied on matters not in evidence in bench trials; Rivera failed to object.
Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove Rivera knowingly possessed the drugs and paraphernalia	Rivera: insufficient evidence to show possession or knowledge	State: sufficient evidence (proximity, items in plain view, wallet/mail tying Rivera to room)	Sufficient. Under Jackson standard and Folk/Gutierrez factors, a rational trier of fact could find constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bryant v. State, 436 Md. 653 (2014) (Rule 8‑131(c) does not create a blanket exception to preservation rules)
Ennis v. State, 306 Md. 579 (1986) (rationale for appellate sufficiency review in bench trials)
Williams v. State, 5 Md. App. 450 (1968) (historical practice permitting appellate sufficiency review in non‑jury trials)
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (double jeopardy bars retrial after appellate reversal for legal insufficiency)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency)
Gutierrez v. State, 446 Md. 221 (2016) (factors for inferring constructive possession: proximity, plain view/accessibility, mutual use, ownership/possessory interest)
Dawkins v. State, 313 Md. 638 (1988) (knowledge is an element of possession offenses)