State v. Trebian
164 N.H. 629
| N.H. | 2013Background
- Trebian was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to sell and possession of ecstasy after a jury trial in Superior Court.
- Vehicle involved in a May 5, 2010 incident was registered to his girlfriend Amanda Guay; police later towed the car and searched it.
- A duffel bag in the back seat contained a large bag of marijuana; ecstasy pills were discovered later during the lab analysis.
- A warrant-based search of the vehicle was conducted the day after the incident, yielding marijuana evidence and related items; Trebian’s name appeared on registrations and receipts found.
- Gardner, an EMT, identified Trebian in a photo lineup as the man he encountered; the State laboratory confirmed marijuana and ecstasy were present.
- On appeal, Trebian challenged the ecstasy charge arguing lack of proof tying him to the pills; the trial court denied the motion to dismiss; the issue centers on constructive possession of the ecstasy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence to prove possession of ecstasy beyond a reasonable doubt? | State argues evidence links Trebian to ecstasy. | Trebian argues no direct link proving knowledge of the pills. | Yes; evidence supports constructive possession and knowledge. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smalley, 148 N.H. 66 (2002) (constructive possession may be inferred from proximity to drugs)
- Duran v. State, 162 N.H. 369 (2011) (standard for sufficiency when proving possession)
- Gibbs v. State, 164 N.H. 439 (2012) (sufficiency standard; view evidence in light favorable to State)
- Allen v. State, 723 N.E.2d 674 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999) (distinguishes uncertainty about drug identity from lack of possession)
- State v. Stiles, 128 N.H. 81 (1986) (proximity and nexus considerations for possession)
- Tallard v. State, 149 N.H. 183 (2003) (approach to sufficiency where possession is implicated)
- State v. Purlee, 839 S.W.2d 584 (Mo. 1992) (constructive possession can be shown by buttressing facts)
- Com. v. McCollum, 945 N.E.2d 937 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011) (evidence of personal effects; inference of possession)
- United States v. Howard, 687 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2012) (juror may choose most reasonable inference regarding possession)