Taylor v. State, 2011 WY 18

October 30, 2008 police found drugs in appellant's girlfriend's apartment and the drugs were alleged to belong to Taylor.
Vandom, the girlfriend, testified the drugs belonged to Taylor and that he controlled the apartment.
Taylor had a key to the apartment and often accessed it; his personal items were found there.
Friend testified Taylor was anxious after the search and told him there were drugs in the apartment.
Taylor was charged with three counts of possession with intent to deliver; a judgment of acquittal was denied after the State's case-in-chief and he was convicted.
On appeal, Taylor contends the State proved only constructive possession and the evidence was insufficient to sustain it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence of constructive possession	Taylor argues no dominion and knowledge	State adduces circumstantial evidence of control and knowledge	No; the evidence supports constructive possession

Sotolongo-Garcia v. State, 60 P.3d 689 (Wy. 2002) (constructive possession may be shown by circumstantial evidence)
Wise v. State, 654 P.2d 116 (Wy. 1982) (possession may be established without actual possession)
Cureton v. State, 169 P.3d 549 (Wy. 2007) (constructive possession analyzed with totality of circumstances)
Urrutia v. State, 924 P.2d 965 (Wy. 1996) (totality of circumstances standard for possession analysis)
Chavez v. State, 601 P.2d 166 (Wy. 1979) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
Russell v. State, 583 P.2d 690 (Wy. 1978) (sufficiency standard for constructive possession)
Heberling v. State, 507 P.2d 1 (Wy. 1973) (evidence must establish essential elements beyond speculation)