## Facts

- The State of Illinois charged K.A., a minor, with unlawful possession of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, and filed a petition to have him declared a delinquent minor.
- Police entered a sparsely furnished, derelict apartment located in a house officers knew was used primarily to store and distribute illegal drugs.
- Officers were familiar with the house from prior raids and knew it was poorly secured, frequently used by many different individuals, accessible to people who did not live there, and not well suited for ordinary habitation.
- Inside the apartment, police found K.A. and another individual.
- When police entered, K.A. was near areas where officers later discovered concealed bags of cocaine.
- Police did not find cocaine on K.A.’s person.
- Police did not find K.A.’s fingerprints on the cocaine packaging.
- There was no evidence that K.A. owned, rented, or lived in the apartment, and no evidence showing he had been there for more than a brief period before police arrived.
- K.A. initially attempted to flee, and his explanation for being in the apartment was viewed as suspicious.
- After an adjudicatory hearing, the trial court adjudicated K.A. delinquent, and K.A. appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that K.A. constructively possessed the concealed cocaine found in an apartment that was accessible to many people.
2. Whether the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that K.A. possessed the cocaine with intent to deliver.

## Decision

- The Illinois Appellate Court reversed the delinquency adjudication.
- The court held the State failed to prove constructive possession because it did not establish that K.A. knew of the concealed cocaine and exercised control over the area where it was found, particularly given the house’s open access and use by many individuals.
- The court further concluded that, without proof of possession (and absent other reliable proof tied to K.A. beyond proximity and suspicious conduct), the finding of intent to deliver could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- Constructive possession requires proof that the accused knew of the presence of contraband and had the ability and intent to exercise control over it.
- When contraband is found on premises not shown to be under the accused’s control—especially premises open to many users—mere presence and proximity to hidden drugs do not, by themselves, establish constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Evidence such as flight or an implausible explanation may be considered with other facts, but it cannot substitute for proof of knowledge and control when the location is accessible to many people.
- A charge of possession with intent to deliver requires proof of possession plus evidence supporting an intent to distribute; if possession is not proven, the intent-to-deliver adjudication fails as well.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed K.A.’s delinquency adjudication because the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that K.A. had knowledge of, and control over, the concealed cocaine found in a frequently accessed drug house apartment, and the intent-to-deliver finding could not stand without proof of possession.


In re K.A., 682 N.E.2d 1233 (1997)