Guilty Knowledge and the Possession of Controlled Substances

When a defendant is charged with a crime involving the possession of a controlled substance, what kind of knowledge or intent must the prosecution show? Must the state prove that the defendant knew that he or she possessed the substance? That the defendant knew that the substance was legally controlled? That the defendant knew the particular identity of the substance? Given the proliferation of controlled substances and the fact that many cannot be distinguished without laboratory equipment, these are important questions. For starters, the state must show that the defendant knew he or she possessed the substance. G.S. 90-95(a)(3) makes it unlawful to “possess a controlled substance.” The statute doesn’t say anything about knowledge. However, the state supreme court has held that “‘[f]elonious possession of a controlled substance has two essential elements. The substance must be possessed and the substance must be knowingly possessed.’” State v. Galaviz-Torres, 368 N.C. 44 (2015), quoting State v. Weldon, 314 N.C. 401 (1985). That likely follows from the very idea of possession: if you’re not aware of the presence of an item, you can’t intend to exercise control over it and so you can’t really possess it. Sometimes defendants contest this issue, as in State v. Boone, 310 N.C. 284 (1984), overruled on other grounds by State v. Oates, 366 N.C. 264 (2012). The defendant in that case claimed that someone else put a duffel bag containing marijuana in his trunk and that he did not know anything about the contents. The Supreme Court of [...]