State v. Ramos, 1 CA-CR 17-0604

Highway Patrol stopped Ramos after observing a lane swerving; officers smelled marijuana when a passenger opened the car to retrieve a lighter.
Both Ramos and the passenger said they did not have medical marijuana cards; officers obtained probable cause and searched the vehicle.
Search revealed a meth pipe in the passenger seat pocket, a personal bag containing a box closed with a hair tie that held ~28.4 grams methamphetamine, ~5.02 grams cocaine, ~0.53 grams marijuana, a digital scale, and sandwich bags with cut corners.
A handgun was found wedged between the driver’s seat and center console within Ramos’s immediate reach.
Ramos was indicted on multiple counts (methamphetamine for sale, cocaine for sale [for-sale allegation later dismissed], possession of marijuana, misconduct involving weapons, and two paraphernalia counts), convicted by a jury, and appealed arguing insufficient evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency for possession of marijuana, cocaine, and paraphernalia	State: constructive possession shown by dominion/control over the location and items in the car	Ramos: box was reachable by both occupants, no fingerprints or admissions linking him	Court: Evidence supported constructive (joint) possession; convictions affirmed
Sufficiency for possession of methamphetamine for sale	State: quantity (28.4g) plus scale, bags, officers’ expert testimony indicate sales intent	Ramos: the amount could be for personal use; not enough to prove intent to sell beyond a reasonable doubt	Court: Officer testimony about quantity and paraphernalia was admissible and sufficient to support a finding of sales intent
Misconduct involving weapons (weapon during felony drug offense)	State: weapon was within immediate reach and could be used to further drug offenses	Ramos: gun could have been for independent self-defense, not to facilitate drug activity	Court: Proximity and accessibility to defendant and drugs permitted jury to find the gun was used, intended to be used, or could have been used to further the drug felony; conviction affirmed

State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559 (addresses standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579 (court examines evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining verdict)
State v. Teagle, 217 Ariz. 17 (defines actual vs. constructive possession and proof requirements)
State v. Carroll, 111 Ariz. 216 (exclusive personal possession not required for constructive possession)
State v. Saiz, 106 Ariz. 352 (joint constructive possession doctrine)
State v. Carreon, 151 Ariz. 615 (police expert testimony on whether drugs are possessed for sale is admissible)
State v. Petrak, 198 Ariz. 260 (weapon-in-drug-offense requires proof weapon could be used to further the drug offense)