Cited by

State v. Cartier, 133 N.H. 217, 221 (1990); State v. Comean, 114 N.H. 431, 435 (1974) (evidence sufficient to establish constructive possession of drugs when evidence showed, among other things, that defendant had access to room where marijuana plants were found and kept personal possessions there).

To begin with the issue of possession, its elements in drug cases have been explained before: the State must prove that the defendant knew of the substance’s presence in his vicinity, knew of its nature as a drug, and had custody of it, exercising dominion and control.

Further, constructive possession of drugs need not be exclusive.

When the State charges possession of a controlled drug, it must prove that the defendant had knowledge of the nature of the drug, had knowledge of its presence in his vicinity, and had custody of the drug with dominion and control over it.

Since “[a] finding of probable cause to support a search warrant does not require more than a showing of ‘a strong probability that the facts alleged are true,’” State v. Emery, 123 N.H. 630, 634, 465 A.2d 922, 924 (1983) (quoting State v. Comeau, 114 N.H. 431, 434, 321 A.2d 590, 592 (1974)), we see no reason to impose tests of reliability, designed for police informants, upon eyewitnesses.

We do state that a magistrate must be presented with some facts sufficient to establish a strong probability that the item sought in connection with a crime will be found on a particular person or in a particular location.

To obtain a conviction under RSA 318-B:26,1(b), the State must “prove beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that the defendant had knowledge of the nature of the drug, (2) that he had knowledge of its presence in his vicinity and (3) that he had custody of the drug and exercised dominion and control over it.” State v. Comeau, 114 N.H. 431, 434, 321 A.2d 590, 592 (1974).

A finding of probable cause to support a search warrant does not require more than a showing of “a strong probability that the facts alleged are true.” State v. Comeau, 114 N.H. 431, 434, 321 A.2d 590, 592 (1974); see State v. Breest, 116 N.H. 734, 744, 367 A.2d 1320, 1328 (1976).

that what is sought, if not contraband or fruits or implements of a crime, will ‘aid in a particular apprehension or conviction.”’ State v. Doe, 115 N.H. 682, 685, 371 A.2d 167, 169 (1975) (citation omitted) (quoting Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 307 (1967)); see Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 556-57 & n.6 (1978); see also State v. Comeau, 114 N.H. 431, 434, 321 A.2d 590, 592 (1974).

RSA 318-B:26 (Supp. 1977) requires the State to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that the defendant had knowledge of the nature of the drug, (2) that he had knowledge of its presence in his vicinity and (3) that he had custody of the drug and exercised dominion and control over it.” State v. Comeau, 114 N.H. 431, 434, 321 A.2d 590, 592 (1974).

United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 577-80 (1971); State v. Comean, 114 N.H. 431, 434, 321 A.2d 590, 592 (1974).

“[Ojnly the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity is the standard of probable cause.” Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419 (1969); United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 107-09 (1965); State v. Comeau, 114 N.H. 431, 321 A.2d 590 (1974).

State v. Nickerson, 114 N.H. 47, 314 A.2d 648 (1974); State v. Comeau, 114 N.H. 431, 321 A.2d 590 (1974); see Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964); United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 (1971).

Since our own cases of State v. Nickerson, 114 N.H. 47, 314 A.2d 648 (1974), and State v. Comeau, 114 N.H. 431, 321 A.2d 590 (1974), support this holding, we see no reason to discuss extensively the various cases from other jurisdictions cited by defendants, many of which are found in Annots., 91 A.L.R.2d 810 (1963) and 56 A.L.R.3d 948 (1974).

United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 (1971); State v. Comeau, 114 N.H. 431, 321 A.2d 590 (1974); State v. Collins, 112 N.H. 449, 298 A.2d 742 (1972).

State v. Comeau, 114 N.H. 431, 321 A.2d 590 (1974); State v. Nickerson, 114 N.H. 47, 52, 314 A.2d 648, 651 (1974); State v. Cote, 113 N.H. 647, 649-50, 312 A.2d 687, 689 (1973).