P. v. Meitzenheimier
Appellant appeals his conviction on drug and weapons charges claiming that (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish that he had actual or constructive possession of the drugs or weapons and (2) the trial court had a sua sponte duty to clarify the jury instruction on constructive possession by providing the jury with a definition of the term "control."
Court conclude that the evidence presented provided an adequate basis for the jury to infer that appellant had possession of the drugs and weapons that were locked in two safes inside a locked bedroom of the apartment where appellant was arrested. Also, the jury instructions did not use the term "control" in a technical sense peculiar to the law. Therefore, the trial court had no sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the meaning of "control."
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Meitzenheimier