State v. Foster., 282 P.3d 560

Foster, a felon, was convicted of unlawful ownership/possession of a firearm and ammunition; the circuit court granted his renewed post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal on these counts.
Prosecution showed firearm and ammunition were found in Foster’s vehicle, with the rifle on the floor near a passenger and ammunition located in the front passenger area; Foster was the vehicle’s owner and driver.
Malano, a passenger, had immediate possession of the rifle and fired rounds; he did not testify, and other passengers’ statements were admitted; the rifle was linked to Malano, not Foster.
The ICA vacated the circuit court’s acquittal ruling and remanded for resentencing based on the jury’s guilty verdicts, citing substantial evidence of Foster’s intent.
Foster applied for certiorari; the Supreme Court held the ICA erred by vacating the acquittal because there was insufficient evidence of Foster’s intent to exercise dominion and control, despite knowledge and proximity.
The Court reaffirmed that constructive possession requires both power/intent to exercise dominion and control, not mere proximity or ownership of the vehicle.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ICA’s vacatur of the acquittal was obviously inconsistent with constructive possession law	State argued substantial evidence supported possession and that the circuit court erred in acquitting	Foster argued lack of intent; proximity and knowledge were insufficient to prove constructive possession	ICA erred; lack of intent requires acquittal reinstated
Whether knowledge and proximity alone establish constructive possession without intent	State contended Jenkins/Moniz show nexus can be inferred from knowledge and proximity	Foster argued intent must accompany knowledge and power; mere presence is insufficient	Knowledge and proximity without intent cannot prove constructive possession

State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawai'i 87 (2000) (defines two-prong test for possession and state of mind for illicit possession)
State v. Moniz, 92 Hawai'i 472 (1999) (requires nexus beyond knowledge/ownership; proximity alone insufficient)
State v. Brown, 97 Hawai'i 323 (2001) (constructive possession requires more than mere proximity or ownership)
In re Mundell, 8 Haw. App. 610 (1991) (foundation for constructive possession concept in Hawaii)
State v. Hironaka, 99 Hawai'i 198 (2002) (mere proximity or association not enough to prove possession)
State v. Yabusaki, 58 Haw. 404 (1977) (mere presence insufficient for possession and intent)
United States v. Wright, 24 F.3d 732 (5th Cir. 1994) (driver alone cannot establish constructive possession over firearm in vehicle)
United States v. Crain, 33 F.3d 480 (5th Cir. 1994) (joint dominion over contraband requires more than mere vehicle ownership)