The possession statute, Utah Code Ann. § 58–37–8(2)(a)(i), only provides for one affirmative defense for a possession charge. When the controlled substance "was obtained under a valid prescription or order, directly from a practitioner," the accused may use this as a defense. Although Utah's drug possession statute does not explicitly contain an innocent possession defense, it implicitly includes an innocent possession provision.
The Innocent Possession defense applies to many drug cases in Utah. Under this defense, the defendant is not required to prove that he or she innocently possessed the substance. Instead, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant did not innocently possess the drug. In other words, the State has the burden of proof at all times.
The proposed jury instructions for the innocent possession defense provide that a person innocently possesses a substance if:
The innocent possession defense applies to charges such as possession of a controlled substance, possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and even the possession of firearm statutes in Utah.
If you were charged with felony possession of a controlled substance in violation of Utah Code section 58–37–8(2)(a)(i) (the “possession statute”), then contact an experienced criminal defense attorney in Salt Lake City, Utah, to find out more about the innocent possession defense.
We can use this defense to help negotiate a better outcome in your case or fight for the "not guilty" verdict at trial. Under this defense, the jury must decide whether the prosecution has proven that the defendant did not innocently possess the controlled substance, chemical substance or counterfeit substance.
Let us put our experience to work for you. Call (801) 532-5297 today.
Back to top
Utah Code section 58–37–8(2)(a)(i) provides that a defendant is guilty of the crime of possession if he or she:
The Controlled Substance Act at § 58–37–2(1)(ii) defines “possession” using terms such as “retaining” and “maintaining,” and it provides that possession may be inferred if the person charged has “the ability and the intent to exercise dominion and control over” the item.
This definition does not, however, clarify whether the term “possess,” as it is used in the possession statute, includes the type of innocent possession at issue here—temporary possession for the purpose of returning a controlled substance to its lawful owner.
As explained by the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Miller, 2008 UT 61, ¶ 21, 193 P.3d 92, 96 (2008):
“Strictly construing the term 'possess' to include every type of possession, whether culpable or innocent, contradicts the legislature's directive to avoid strictly construing the code, and it is contrary to the policy goals of safeguarding faultless conduct and promoting justice. This is most apparent in the many examples of injustices that may result from strictly construing the term 'possess.'
A daughter who no longer lives at home but who picks up her sick mother's prescription medication and drives it to her mother's home, for example, could be guilty of felony possession under a strict construction of the term 'possess…..' [A] house guest who inadvertently leaves a prescription bottle of pills at a homeowner's home creates an impossible situation for the homeowner wherein she could do nothing short of immediately fleeing her home to avoid 'possessing' the pills.
Because construing the term 'possess' to include brief, innocent possession contradicts the legislature's interpretative guidelines and creates a myriad of absurd prosecutorial possibilities, we hold that the term 'possess,' as it is used in section 58–37–8(2)(a)(i), excludes transitory possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of returning it to its lawful owner. That is, we hold that the possession statute implicitly includes the defense of innocent possession.
The proposed instructions on the defense of innocent possession provide that:
Back to top
Across the United States, courts that recognize an innocent possession defense cite public policy reasons for doing so. The main public policy reason for the innocent possession defense is to “prevent a conviction for an innocent act.” People v. E.C., 195 Misc.2d 680, 761 N.Y.S.2d 443, 445 (Sup.Ct.2003).
For instance, in People v. E.C., the New York appellate court recognized an innocent possession defense. The court explained that a juror who handles illegal drugs as part of a review of the evidence would be guilty of possession under a strict interpretation of the possession statute. Id.
The State of California also recognizes the innocent possession defense and applies it to “fleeting and transitory” possession of illegal drugs “for the purpose of disposal.” People v. Martin, 25 Cal.4th 1180, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 599, 25 P.3d 1081, 1088–89, n. 9 (2001).
The courts in Utah have explained that the Utah legislature recognizes the statutory defense of justification that protects a person from prosecution conduct that is “justified for any ... reason under the laws of this state.” Utah Code Ann. § 76–2–401(1)(e). The broad catchall provision under the innocent possession defense allows the courts to make sure that justice is done.
Back to top
Use the form above to request your free, confidential case evaluation. Our office will contact you as soon as possible to arrange for you to discuss the facts of your case with an experienced criminal defense attorney in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Note: By submitting the above form, you are requesting a free and confidential consultation with one of our attorneys to discuss the specific facts of your case. We will evaluate your unique situation and provide you with valuable information about how an attorney may be able to help you. Please do not provide any confidential or time-sensitive information using this online contact form. If your situation is urgent, please call us at (801) 532-5297. We look forward to hearing from you.
The use of this form for communication with our personnel does not establish an attorney-client relationship.
Mark has represented our son for over ten years. We have a difficult situation but we have never doubted that Mark, and now, Mike, care about him and our family. Their caring advice has been a lifeline for us.
Mike Holje was there for me and helped me get the charges dismissed. He was fantastic. I am so thankful for this firm.
Jim Bradshaw worked with me on a case and was helpful, realistic and very professional. I found him to be one of the best attorneys (and person) I have encountered.
I used Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat and would recommend them to anyone. Everyone in his or her office is kind, efficient and very responsive. You are treated respectfully and on an equal playing field.