State v. Ashcraft, 349 P.3d 664

Police repeatedly observed a tan Ford Ranger registered to Justin Sorenson in a motel parking lot known for drug activity; on the second night Shannon Ashcraft was driving with passenger April Chavez.
Officer Huggard stopped the truck, learned Ashcraft had a suspended license and began impoundment; both occupants consented to searches.
During a personal search, officers found a pocketknife on Ashcraft with a brownish/black tar-like substance and $793 in his wallet.
An inventory search of the truck bed revealed a green zippered bag stowed between the bed edge and spare tire; Ashcraft denied knowledge and accused the officer of planting the bag.
Inside the bag officers found multiple baggies with white crystal-like and brown tar-like substances, pills, digital scales, glass pipes, other paraphernalia, and a pink stun gun; field tests and the officer’s narcotics experience suggested methamphetamine and heroin but no lab fingerprint or forensic testing tied Ashcraft to the items.
A jury convicted Ashcraft of possession with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon, and possession of drug paraphernalia; Ashcraft appealed claiming insufficient evidence of constructive possession and prosecutorial misconduct.

Issue	Ashcraft's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession	Evidence only shows non‑exclusive proximity/occupancy of vehicle; no forensic link to contraband	Cumulative circumstantial evidence (late‑night presence in drug area, large cash, proximity to bag, accusatory statement, residue on knife) supports a reasonable inference of dominion and control	Affirmed — jury reasonably could infer constructive possession from the cumulative evidence
Prosecutorial misconduct (vouching)	Prosecutor vouched for officer and appealed to matters outside the record; improperly referenced personal experience about cash	Prosecutor’s remarks were permissible credibility argument and reasonable inference drawing; any personal remark was harmless and jurors were told to use their own experience	Affirmed — no impermissible vouching or prejudicial misconduct

State v. Fox, 709 P.2d 316 (Utah 1985) (constructive‑possession requires sufficient nexus showing power and intent to exercise dominion and control)
State v. Workman, 122 P.3d 639 (Utah 2005) (cumulative circumstantial factors can establish nexus for constructive possession)
State v. Nielsen, 326 P.3d 645 (Utah 2014) (appellate review views evidence and reasonable inferences in light most favorable to the verdict)
State v. Maughan, 305 P.3d 1058 (Utah 2013) (jury inferences are reasonable unless inconsistent or incredible)
State v. Hopkins, 782 P.2d 475 (Utah 1989) (prosecutorial comments that introduce matters not in evidence may be misconduct)