The crime of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute is a second-degree felony under Utah Code Ann. §§ 58-37-8(1)(a)(iii). In Utah, the crime of possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance is punishable in the same manner as a charge of drug distribution.
A conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you knowingly and intentionally "possessed" the drug in question. If you were merely present at the place where the controlled substance was found, then that fact alone is insufficient to prove that you were in possession of a controlled substance.
The charge also requires proof that you possessed the drugs with the intent to distribute them to another. The type of evidence that shows an intent to distribute the drugs can include:
Your criminal defense attorney must show all of the reasons why there was not a sufficient nexus between you and the drugs to permit a factual inference that you had the power and the intent to exercise control over the drugs or paraphernalia.
Alternatively, your attorney attempts to show that the accused's possession was only for personal consumption and not with the intention to distribute or sell the drugs to another person.
If you were charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, a second-degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 58–37–8, then contact an experienced criminal defense attorney at Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat, LLP.
Our attorneys are experienced in fighting a wide range of drug crimes cases from simple possession to drug trafficking. Let us put our experience to work for you.
Call us at (801) 532-5297 today.
Back to top
Back to top
The crime of Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Distribute requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the following elements:
To prove that the accused had constructive possession, the prosecution must provide that there is a sufficient nexus between you and the drug to permit an inference that you had both the power and the intent to exercise dominion and control over the drug. In other words, there must be facts which show that you intended to use the drugs or paraphernalia as your own.
The existence of a sufficient nexus to prove constructive possession is a highly fact-sensitive determination. The court will consider a host of factors to determine whether constructive possession has been proven. While the list of factors are helpful in determining whether constructive possession can be proven, the list is not exhaustive.
Back to top
The penalties for crimes related to the possession of controlled substance with the intention to distribute the drugs to another person depend on a variety of factors including the type of drug possessed, whether a firearm was used in connection with the possession, and the location where the possession occurred.
For marijuana, in particular, possession with intent to distribute any amount is charged as a third-degree felony under Utah Statute 58-37-8(1)(a)(iii). A second offense is charged as a second-degree felony.
In addition, the penalties for possession with the intent to distribute marijuana may be subject to enhanced penalties. When a person commits the crime in a Drug-Free Zone, it is elevated to a second-degree felony. Possession with intent to distribute charges also become more severe if the defendant was in possession of a firearm during the commission of the offense.
The statutory maximum penalties for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and other non-schedule I or schedule II drugs in Utah include:
For drugs classified as a Schedule I or Schedule II substance, possession with intent to distribute is charged as a second-degree felony. These penalties apply to controlled substances such as opium, cocaine, heroin, LSD, and methamphetamines. For a second offense, the crime is classified as a first-degree felony.
If the drug in question is not included in the schedules above, like hydrocodone, ketamine, codeine, and other prescriptions, the accused could be charged with a third-degree felony, carrying penalties up to five years in prison and $5,000 in fines.
Again, prior similar convictions can be elevated to a second-degree felony, with a potential sentence up to 15 years and $10,000 in fines.
Other penalties that apply if a person is convicted of possession with the intent to distribute include Utah driver’s license suspension. A drug conviction will also disqualify the accused from some types of federal student aid or housing options.
Back to top
If it is determined beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime of Distribution of a Controlled Substance or Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Distribute, the jury will also be asked to decide whether you used a firearm during the commission of that crime.
To find that you used a firearm during the commission of the crime, the jury must find, beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements:
Back to top
Enhanced penalties apply in drug cases in Utah if any of the following circumstances are proven beyond a reasonable doubt:
For purposes of the enhanced penalties based on the location of the offense, Utah law also provides that the defendant's belief or ignorance about whether the location was one of the locations identified above is not a defense.
Under Utah's drug-free zone statute, a crime that would normally be classified as a second-degree felony would become a first-degree felony punishable by up to life in prison. Likewise, the possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute is enhanced from a third-degree felony to a second-degree felony.
Enhanced penalties can also be imposed if the crime was committed in the presence of a person younger than 18 years of age, regardless of where the act occurs. For these enhanced penalties, the defendant's belief or ignorance about the person's age is not a defense.
Utah law also imposed enhanced penalties for drug crimes committed for the purpose of facilitating, arranging, or causing the transport, delivery, or distribution of a controlled or counterfeit substance to an inmate or on the grounds of any correctional facility.
Under Utah Code § 76-8-311.3, the term "correctional facility" means:
Under Utah Code § 76-10-501, the term "firearm" means a pistol, revolver, shotgun, short barreled shotgun, rifle or short barreled rifle, or a device that could be used as a dangerous weapon from which is expelled a projectile by action of an explosive.
Back to top
To show constructive possession, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs were subject to your dominion and control and the defendant had the intent to exercise that control. Talk with an experienced criminal defense attorney in Salt Lake City, Utah, about the specific facts of your case.
At Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat, LLP, our experience drug defense attorneys can help you with asserting an aggressive defense at each stage of the case. Call (801) 532-5297 today.
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.