constructive possession doctrine in California

2016(See People v. Blakely (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1052 ; People v. Osuna (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1020 , 10291030; People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1417 [outlining doctrine of constructive possession]).14 The question of whether Valdez wielded a revolver or a semiautomatic “merely presents the possibility the jury may divide, or be uncertain, as to the exact way the defendant is guilty of a single discrete crime.” (Russo, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1135 .) In such a situation, a unanimity instruction is not required.

2015(Id. at pp. 1414-1416.) Sifuentes was convicted, inter alia, of possession of a firearm by a felon, based on the doctrine of constructive possession. ( Sifuentes, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1413, 1417.) On appeal, he claimed the evidence was insufficient to support a finding he had the right to control the firearm discovered near Lopez.

2016(Id. at pp. 1132, 1135; see People v. Saddler (1979) 24 Cal.3d 671, 681 [“The trial court has the duty … ‘to refrain from instructing on principles of law which not only are irrelevant to the issues raised by the evidence but also have the effect of confusing the jury ….’ [Citation.].]) 14 Even assuming arguendo there was evidence Valdez actually possessed one firearm and constructively possessed Franco’s, a unanimity instruction would not be required because these acts were not temporally and spatially fragmented.

2013(People v. Solis (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1002, 1015 [trial court is not required to elaborate on properly given instructions].) Any objection would have been futile.

2011A finding of fact must be an inference drawn from evidence rather than ... a mere speculation as to probabilities without evidence.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Cluff(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 1002 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 80 ].) The prosecution obtained Sifuentes’s conviction for felon in possession of a gun (§ 12021; count 2) based on the doctrine of constructive possession. 3 To establish constructive possession, the prosecution must prove a defendant knowingly exercised a right to control the prohibited item, either directly or through another person. {People v. Pena (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1078, 10

2011A finding of fact must be an inference drawn from evidence rather than ... a mere speculation as to probabilities without evidence.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Cluff(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 1002 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 80 ].) The prosecution obtained Sifuentes’s conviction for felon in possession of a gun (§ 12021; count 2) based on the doctrine of constructive possession. 3 To establish constructive possession, the prosecution must prove a defendant knowingly exercised a right to control the prohibited item, either directly or through another person. {People v. Pena (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1078, 10

2011A finding of fact must be an inference drawn from evidence rather than ... a mere speculation as to probabilities without evidence.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Cluff(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 1002 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 80 ].) The prosecution obtained Sifuentes’s conviction for felon in possession of a gun (§ 12021; count 2) based on the doctrine of constructive possession. 3 To establish constructive possession, the prosecution must prove a defendant knowingly exercised a right to control the prohibited item, either directly or through another person. {People v. Pena (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1078, 10

2011A finding of fact must be an inference drawn from evidence rather than ... a mere speculation as to probabilities without evidence.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Cluff(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 1002 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 80 ].) The prosecution obtained Sifuentes’s conviction for felon in possession of a gun (§ 12021; count 2) based on the doctrine of constructive possession. 3 To establish constructive possession, the prosecution must prove a defendant knowingly exercised a right to control the prohibited item, either directly or through another person. {People v. Pena (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1078, 10

2011A finding of fact must be an inference drawn from evidence rather than ... a mere speculation as to probabilities without evidence.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Cluff(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 1002 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 80 ].) The prosecution obtained Sifuentes’s conviction for felon in possession of a gun (§ 12021; count 2) based on the doctrine of constructive possession. 3 To establish constructive possession, the prosecution must prove a defendant knowingly exercised a right to control the prohibited item, either directly or through another person. {People v. Pena (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1078, 10

2011A finding of fact must be an inference drawn from evidence rather than ... a mere speculation as to probabilities without evidence.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Cluff(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 1002 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 80 ].) The prosecution obtained Sifuentes’s conviction for felon in possession of a gun (§ 12021; count 2) based on the doctrine of constructive possession. 3 To establish constructive possession, the prosecution must prove a defendant knowingly exercised a right to control the prohibited item, either directly or through another person. {People v. Pena (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1078, 10

2011A finding of fact must be an inference drawn from evidence rather than ... a mere speculation as to probabilities without evidence.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Cluff(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 1002 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 80 ].) The prosecution obtained Sifuentes’s conviction for felon in possession of a gun (§ 12021; count 2) based on the doctrine of constructive possession. 3 To establish constructive possession, the prosecution must prove a defendant knowingly exercised a right to control the prohibited item, either directly or through another person. {People v. Pena (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1078, 10

2011A finding of fact must be an inference drawn from evidence rather than ... a mere speculation as to probabilities without evidence.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Cluff(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 1002 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 80 ].) The prosecution obtained Sifuentes’s conviction for felon in possession of a gun (§ 12021; count 2) based on the doctrine of constructive possession. 3 To establish constructive possession, the prosecution must prove a defendant knowingly exercised a right to control the prohibited item, either directly or through another person. {People v. Pena (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1078, 10

2011A finding of fact must be an inference drawn from evidence rather than ... a mere speculation as to probabilities without evidence.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Cluff(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 1002 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 80 ].) The prosecution obtained Sifuentes’s conviction for felon in possession of a gun (§ 12021; count 2) based on the doctrine of constructive possession. 3 To establish constructive possession, the prosecution must prove a defendant knowingly exercised a right to control the prohibited item, either directly or through another person. {People v. Pena (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1078, 10

2011A finding of fact must be an inference drawn from evidence rather than ... a mere speculation as to probabilities without evidence.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Cluff(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 1002 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 80 ].) The prosecution obtained Sifuentes’s conviction for felon in possession of a gun (§ 12021; count 2) based on the doctrine of constructive possession. 3 To establish constructive possession, the prosecution must prove a defendant knowingly exercised a right to control the prohibited item, either directly or through another person. {People v. Pena (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1078, 10

1968Possession may be established under the doctrine of constructive possession. [Citations.] Constructive possession, moreover, may be proven by circumstantial evidence. [Citations.] In People v. Vice, 147 Cal.App.2d 269, at p. 274 [ 305 P.2d 270 ], the rule is stated as follows: “ [To prove] ‘possession, . . . the narcotics need not be found on the person of the defendant, it being sufficient if such articles are deposited in a place under the possession and control of the accused. ’ ’ ’ The actions of appellant in this case are indicative of Ms knowledge of the character , of the substance he p

1968Possession may be established under the doctrine of constructive possession. [Citations.] Constructive possession, moreover, may be proven by circumstantial evidence. [Citations.] In People v. Vice, 147 Cal.App.2d 269, at p. 274 [ 305 P.2d 270 ], the rule is stated as follows: “ [To prove] ‘possession, . . . the narcotics need not be found on the person of the defendant, it being sufficient if such articles are deposited in a place under the possession and control of the accused. ’ ’ ’ The actions of appellant in this case are indicative of Ms knowledge of the character , of the substance he p

1965(People v. Blinks, 158 Cal.App.2d 264, 267 [ 322 P.2d 466 ]; People v. Flores, 155 Cal.App.2d 347, 349 [ 318 P.2d 65 ].) Constructive possession, moreover, may be proven by circumstantial evidence.

1965(People v. Blinks, 158 Cal.App.2d 264, 267 [ 322 P.2d 466 ]; People v. Flores, 155 Cal.App.2d 347, 349 [ 318 P.2d 65 ].) Constructive possession, moreover, may be proven by circumstantial evidence.

1965(People v. Blinks, 158 Cal.App.2d 264, 267 [ 322 P.2d 466 ]; People v. Flores, 155 Cal.App.2d 347, 349 [ 318 P.2d 65 ].) Constructive possession, moreover, may be proven by circumstantial evidence.

1965(People v. Blinks, 158 Cal.App.2d 264, 267 [ 322 P.2d 466 ]; People v. Flores, 155 Cal.App.2d 347, 349 [ 318 P.2d 65 ].) Constructive possession, moreover, may be proven by circumstantial evidence.