## Facts

- Police stopped a car for a traffic violation; six people were inside, including four in the back seat.
- Ross Ian Rivers Cashen sat in the back seat near a window, with his girlfriend on his lap.
- After officers learned another passenger had an outstanding warrant, all occupants exited the vehicle.
- With Cashen’s consent, an officer searched him and found a lighter and Zig-Zag rolling papers.
- Officers searched Cashen’s girlfriend and found rolling papers and a small baggie of marijuana seeds in her pants pocket.
- With the driver’s consent, officers searched the car and found a baggie of marijuana wedged in the rear seat crack on the side where Cashen and his girlfriend had been seated.
- Cashen denied knowledge of the marijuana twice during the stop.
- At the jail, Cashen asked whether anyone had “fessed up” to the marijuana and later stated it belonged to his girlfriend; the girlfriend admitted it was hers.
- There was no evidence Cashen smelled of marijuana, acted suspiciously, or made furtive movements.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported a finding that Cashen constructively possessed the marijuana found in the rear seat of a jointly occupied car.
2. Whether an ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel’s failure to seek a new trial for weight-of-the-evidence reasons required relief.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals decision and reversed the district court’s judgment and sentence.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove Cashen constructively possessed the marijuana.
- Because the conviction was reversed for insufficient evidence, the court did not reach the ineffective-assistance claim in a way that affected the outcome.

## Legal Principles

- To prove constructive possession, the State must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (1) exercised dominion and control over the substance, (2) knew of its presence, and (3) knew its nature as a controlled substance.
- When the defendant lacks exclusive possession of the place where contraband is found, mere proximity is insufficient; additional incriminating circumstances must link the defendant to the specific contraband.
- Evidence consistent with drug use or potential future/past possession (e.g., rolling papers, a lighter) may support suspicion but does not, without more, establish dominion and control over a particular stash in a shared area.
- Statements indicating awareness of contraband may support an inference of knowledge, but knowledge alone does not establish possession absent evidence of dominion and control.

## Conclusion

The court reversed the possession conviction because a crowded, jointly occupied back seat, ambiguous paraphernalia, and statements indicating at most knowledge did not provide substantial evidence that Cashen exercised dominion and control over the marijuana found in the seat.


State v. Cashen, 666 N.W.2d 566 (Iowa 2003)