The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marihuana, and possession of proceeds of crime, arguing the verdicts were unreasonable as they were based merely on his proximity to concealed drugs and money in a rental car.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the circumstantial evidence, including the quantity and value of the drugs, the appellant's continuous cell phone use, and the location of the contraband, supported the trial judge's inference that the appellant had knowledge of and control over the drugs and money.
