State v. Lucero, 350 P.3d 237

Police stopped Armando Lucero driving a car with a female passenger; Lucero lacked a valid driver’s license and the car was impounded.
During the inventory search, officers opened a sling backpack on the floor behind the front passenger seat; Lucero denied the backpack was his before contraband was discovered.
The backpack contained a digital scale disguised as cigarettes, drugs in a false peanut can, a handgun with its serial number filed off, and thank-you notes; the passenger’s purse and person also yielded drugs and paraphernalia.
The car contained multiple other household items and luggage Lucero said he was transporting for an ex-girlfriend; the ex-girlfriend claimed some items but not the backpack.
Lucero was convicted of four offenses based on constructive possession of the backpack’s contents: possession/use of a controlled substance, theft by receiving stolen property, possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person, and possession/use of drug paraphernalia.
On appeal Lucero argued the State failed to prove a sufficient nexus to establish constructive possession; the Court of Appeals reversed those convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported constructive possession of contraband in backpack	The backpack was within Lucero’s reach and he denied ownership, supporting an inference he had power and intent to control the items	Mere presence in vehicle and denial of ownership are insufficient without other corroborative evidence tying Lucero to the backpack	Reversed — evidence insufficient to prove constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt

State v. Fox, 709 P.2d 316 (Utah 1985) (constructive possession requires sufficient nexus showing power and intent to exercise control)
State v. Workman, 122 P.3d 639 (Utah 2005) (shared occupancy insufficient alone; intermingling of personal effects with contraband can supply the necessary nexus)
State v. Layman, 985 P.2d 911 (Utah 1999) (looking to another occupant for access to contraband does not establish constructive possession from a mere look or gesture)
State v. Gonzalez-Camargo, 293 P.3d 1121 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (joint occupancy must be coupled with other evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt about control over contraband)
State v. Salas, 820 P.2d 1386 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (part-ownership and presence in vehicle plus an anonymous tip are insufficient to prove constructive possession)