The accused was charged with production of marihuana and possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered a large commercial grow operation in a residence.
The prosecution relied primarily on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance showing the accused attending the premises multiple times and possessing keys to the residence.
The defence argued the accused merely attended the home to check on a tenant and had no knowledge of the grow operation.
The court rejected the defence evidence as implausible and found that the accused had knowledge and a measure of control over the premises, supporting constructive possession and party liability for production.
The accused was convicted on both counts.
