§4-22 Mere Presence—controlled Substance

• Library: South Carolina Requests to Charge - Criminal (SCBar) (2023 Ed.)

§4-22 Mere Presence—Controlled Substance

The mere presence of a defendant where a crime has occurred or the mere association by a defendant with people who have committed a crime is insufficient proof that the defendant has committed a crime. Evidence that an individual is present at the time a crime is committed is not, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the individual committed a crime.

Thus, the mere presence of a defendant on property where controlled substances are kept or the mere association by a defendant with people who possess controlled substances is insufficient proof that the defendant possessed the controlled substance. Evidence that an individual is present at the time of a sale of a controlled substance is not, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the individual had actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance.

Possession requires more than mere presence. Mere presence where the controlled substance is found is not sufficient to convict without more. Evidence that an individual is present at the time a controlled substance is found or located is not in and of itself sufficient proof that the individual had actual or constructive possession of the controlled substance. Proof of constructive possession by the defendant requires that the State show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had dominion and control over the controlled substance or had the right to exercise dominion and control over the controlled substance. Stated in other terms, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had both the power and intent to control the disposition or use of the controlled substance.

If you find from the evidence or the lack of evidence that the defendant was merely present on property where the controlled substance was found or merely associated with persons who possessed or sold the controlled substance and do not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had dominion and control...