State Of Washington v. Curtis Vincent, 48945-7

On Feb. 14, 2016, Aberdeen police arrested Curtis Edward Vincent after a traffic stop; he was wearing a baseball hat.
At booking, a corrections officer checked the hat’s inner band and found a small bag later forensic-tested as methamphetamine.
The State charged Vincent with unlawful possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine).
Vincent testified he was an occasional drug user who stored drugs in his hat and was the hat’s sole possessor, but claimed he was unaware of the methamphetamine that day (affirmative defense of unwitting possession).
The parties agreed the jury would be instructed only on actual possession (not constructive possession).
The jury found Vincent guilty; he appealed arguing the evidence showed only constructive, not actual, possession because the drugs were in the hat rather than on his person.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove actual possession of methamphetamine found in Vincent’s hat	State: methamphetamine was in Vincent’s hat which he was wearing, so he had physical custody and actual possession	Vincent: drugs were in the hat (not on his person); at most proved constructive possession, and the court only instructed on actual possession	The presence of methamphetamine in a hat worn by Vincent constituted actual possession; conviction affirmed

State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102, 330 P.3d 182 (2014) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
State v. Staley, 123 Wn.2d 794, 872 P.2d 502 (1994) (distinction between actual and constructive possession; fleeting control may be insufficient)
State v. Byrd, 178 Wn.2d 611, 310 P.3d 793 (2013) (in search-incident-to-arrest context, actual possession includes items immediately associated with the arrestee’s person)
State v. Callahan, 77 Wn.2d 27, 459 P.2d 400 (1969) (definitional discussion of actual vs. constructive possession)