Unwitting Possession Stockton CA

What does the term "unwitting possession" mean and is it a valid defense in Stockton? Unwitting possession means that you possessed a contraband substance without knowing you had it. The classic case is mail carriers - they deliver a package containing cocaine but are not guilty of possessing cocaine because they didn't know (and had no reason to know) that cocaine was in the package.

Karel Robert Foster
2600 PACIFIC AVE
STOCKTON, CA
Scott Gregory Beattie
1810 GRAND CANAL BLVD STE 6
STOCKTON, CA
Steven Dell Crabtree
2291 W MARCH LN STE B100
STOCKTON, CA
Daniel Scott Truax
209-948-8200
509 W. Weber Avenue, 5th Floor
Stockton, CA
Jay Michael Hislop
209-954-0180
2155 W March Ln Ste 2e
Stockton, CA
Thomas Harry Terpstra
2291 W MARCH LN STE B100
STOCKTON, CA
James Edward Ganzer
1617 SAINT MARKS PLZ STE A
STOCKTON, CA
John William Viss III
1818 GRAND CANAL BLVD
STOCKTON, CA
Daniel J Schroeder
209-948-8200
509 W. Weber Avenue, 5th Floor
Stockton, CA
Karen Satterly Bensch
209-948-8200
509 W. Weber Avenue, 5th Floor
Stockton, CA
Data Provided by:
 
Provided By:

Unwitting Possession

What does the term "unwitting possession" mean and is it a valid defense?

Unwitting possession means that you possessed a contraband substance without knowing you had it. The classic case is mail carriers - they deliver a package containing cocaine but are not guilty of possessing cocaine because they didn't know (and had no reason to know) that cocaine was in the package. The other classic case is borrowing someone's car and the owner had cocaine stashed in the door frame. Some states allow unwitting possession as a defense, some add the 'had no reason to know' element, and some don't specifically recognize the defense at all.

However, in all jurisdictions, evidence which convincingly proves that the defendant did not know the drugs were there eliminates the element of "mens rea," or "guilty knowledge or intent." It is not a crime to be unlucky. The defendant usually has the burden of proving unwitting possession by a preponderance of the evidence. Look at it this way, if a jury is faced only with evidence that there were drugs hidden in a car used by multiple people and no evidence at all that the one arrested is the one who put it there, or even uses drugs, it is difficult to imagine how such a jury could find "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." The missing other drivers of the car are as likely to be the ones who put the drugs there as the one arrested. The more deeply hidden the drugs are, the less likely the driver knew they were there.

(Updated August 30, 2007)

Copyright 2009 Advice Company - All Rights Reserved.

Click here to read article at FreeAdvice.com