Legal Question in Criminal Law in California
Proof of Posession or Ownership
Is a reciept from a retail store which has the name of a person on the actual reciept (name only, no address or phone number) in which cash was used for the purchase leavning no checking acount or credit card information a valid proof of posession or ownership of a bag that the reciept was found in? The reciept was over 30 days old and in a backpack inside a car. During a search, police found drugs in the backpack as well and the only connection to the person arrested for the drugs was a reciept in the bag with that persons name on it. The vehicle was not in the name of the accused and there was more than one person in the car. No ID or other identifing factor was inside the backpack with the drugs. The reciept shows that cash was used for payment and the store itself requests a name when purchasing, however no ID is required for the purchase so anyone could put anyone's name on a receipt from this store. Is this enough to tie someone to the drugs and is there any precident for a situation like this?
3 Answers from Attorneys
Re: Proof of Posession or Ownership
Whenever I pay cash and the store asks for my name I tell em, Ben Franklin.
Re: Proof of Posession or Ownership
Hello. You have asked a good question. I assume that there is more to it than just the simple facts that you offered in your question. Obviously, if the only connection to the person was that receipt, then the case against him or her is weak. Have they charged the person with the crime? If so, then he or she has an excellent defense. Often times, there is always more of a connection and the D.A. must prove so before a jury will convict. Any further questions, don't be afraid to ask. Catherine Lombardo (909)482-0384
Re: Proof of Posession or Ownership
The law regards very few facts as "proof" of anything. Instead, facts are *evidence* which may or may not persuade a jury or judge to believe an argument one side of the case is making.
Does an old receipt with your name prove that you own the backpack? No. Does it suggest that you own it? Yes, since that is the most likely explanation for the presence of the receipt. If that is all the evidence available then the prosecutor may have a hard time proving her case, but if there is other evidence tying you to the bag -- witnesses who have seen you with an identical bag, for example, or your fingerprints on items inside -- the case will be much stronger.
If all of the evidence put together persuades a jury of your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then the matter is considered proven. The law does not answer your question one way or the other because whether you own the bag is more a factual question than a legal one. Only a judge or jury can decide whether the evidence proves the prosecution's theory of the case.
I should also point out that "ownership" is not part of the definition of most drug offenses. Possession is all that is necessary, and you can possess many things without owning them. If I lend you my jacket, you possess it until I get it back even though I remain the owner. As long as you are have immediate control over something you possess it in the eyes of the law. And if what you possess happens to be drugs and you are aware of this fact, then you are guilty of drug possession no matter who actually owns the drugs.
Related Questions & Answers
-
Embezzelment or grand theft and what to do A valued employee has just admitted to... Asked 8/18/04, 12:36 am in United States California Criminal Law
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
