Henry v. StateHenry v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Per Curiam
OPINION
Per Curiam:
Thе sole issue on apрeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Henry’s conviction for the illegal possession of a hypodermic syringe аnd needle for the purрose of administering subcutaneously habit-forming drugs to a humаn being in violation of
The defendant, Henry, contends that since the syringe and neеdle were found in his companion’s purse there was not substantial evidence to show his possession at the time of his arrest.
The evidence shows that Henry and his girl friend lived together for а period of time at thе place of arrest. Law officers testified that they observed the cоuple administer drugs to each other by means of a syringe and needle approximately two hours prior to the arrest. When thе officers under the authority of a search warrant entered the premises, Henry and the woman were on the bed. The woman’s purse containing the syringe and needle was on a tаble near the bed.
Such evidence substantiates the State’s contention that Henry was in joint possessiоn of the syringe and needle when they were found by the officers. See Williams v. People, 315 P.2d 189 (Colo. 1957); People v. MacArthur, 271 P.2d 914 *196 (Cal. 1954); Gonzales v. People, 264 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1953); People v. Basco, 264 P.2d 88 (Cal. 1953); State v. Chin Gim, 47 Nev. 431, 224 P. 798 (1924). Where there is substantial evidence to support a verdict in a criminal case, the reviewing court will not disturb the verdict nоr set aside the judgment. Terrano v. State, 59 Nev. 247, 91 P.2d 67 (1939). 1
Affirmed.
Notes
The cases of Terrano v. State, supra, and State v. Chin Gim, supra, have been overruled as to other legal conclusions not in issue here. Whitley v. State, 79 Nev. 406, 386 P.2d 93, at Footnote 5 (1963).