re: No charges for Cam and Hootie

quote:

---

First, unless he said it was his you have problems over which one "owned" it. Second, you might not be able to prove that either one even knew it was there. Third, not knowing an item is stolen is a defense to possession of stolen property.

---

You don't have to be the "owner" to be a possessor, but otherwise, everything you said is correct. And I think there is reason to believe that proving knowledge of the gun's stolen status would have been problematic. It is in every case.

quote:

---

Logically, if Hootie didn't know there were drugs, and they were Robinson's, Hooitie is off the hook.

---

Yes, but that only begs the question about the sufficiency of the evidence. If Hootie tested positive for marijuana -- hell, if he just displayed evidence of being under the influence, such as having red eyes, delayed speach -- there is clearly enough probable cause to charge under a "constructive possession" theory, which only requires knowledge of the item's presence and the ability to maintain dominion and control over it.

Possession is also not exclusive, meaning everyone that smoked in the car would be on the line.

I haven't seen the arrest report, though.

I did just read the D.A. said "even if I could get DNA showing that he had touched it at some point in time, that does not mean that he obtained it," which shows he is, at the very least, a legal retard since DNA evidence would be f'n good evidence of "possession," i.e., a basis to charge under the statute just as much as "receiving" is.