State v. Twitty

After a court-tried criminal trial, Defendant was found guilty of possession of a chemical with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance. Defendant appealed, arguing that the State did not present sufficient evidence that he possessed pseudoephedrine at the time detectives searched his residence. The evidence established that Defendant actually possessed pseudoephedrine on the date of the offense, despite the fact that no pseudoephedrine was found at Defendant’s residence at the time the detectives conducted their search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a reasonable inference drawn from the circumstances of this case is that Defendant actually possessed pseudoephedrine on the date of the offense. View "State v. Twitty" on Justia Law