The applicant sought an order of certiorari to quash her committal to stand trial on charges of possession of cannabis marihuana for the purpose of trafficking and producing marihuana.
The application argued that the preliminary inquiry justice exceeded jurisdiction by committing based on insufficient evidence regarding control over the premises/marihuana and participation in cultivation, amounting to speculation.
The court reviewed the standard for certiorari, which limits intervention to jurisdictional error, and the "scintilla of evidence" test for committal.
It found that the preliminary inquiry judge's inferences were reasonable, supported by circumstantial evidence connecting the applicant to the large-scale grow operation, including her presence, personal belongings, and car keys found within the facility.
The court dismissed the application, affirming that a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer the applicant's involvement.
