## Facts

- Joe Frank Matarazzo, age 20, rented and lived in a trailer in Hampton, South Carolina.
- Two nonpaying, unemployed guests lived with him: Russell Curl (19) and Willie Mays (14).
- On April 27, 1973, police officers went to the trailer based on informant information; they entered after being invited inside.
- In the living room, officers found eleven youths (ages 13–18), a warm pipe on the floor, and the odor of burning marijuana; Matarazzo was at work and not present.
- Officers had a search warrant later deemed invalid.
- Officers found three bags of marijuana under a bathroom bathtub and a fourth bag under a living-room couch near the pipe.
- At trial, the three bathroom bags were excluded; only the couch bag was admitted as physical evidence.
- Witness testimony indicated that four bags had been in the trailer for several nights and that Matarazzo knew of their presence; Curl and Mays testified to knowledge and intent to distribute.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit the case to the jury and sustain a conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, including under a constructive-possession theory.
2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the marijuana bag found under the couch and the pipe found in the living room, given the invalid search warrant and suppression of the bathroom bags.
3. Whether testimony referencing the existence/quantity of four bags of marijuana was inadmissible as derivative of suppressed evidence.
4. Whether the prosecutor’s closing-argument remarks required a new trial due to prejudice.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the conviction and two-year sentence.
- The court held the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to deny a directed verdict and support constructive possession with intent to distribute.
- The court upheld admission of the couch bag and pipe as lawfully seized in the room where a lawful arrest occurred, independent of the invalid warrant.
- The court held testimony about four bags and quantity was admissible because it came from independent witness knowledge rather than from the suppressed physical evidence.
- The court found no reversible prejudice from the closing-argument remarks where objections were sustained and the jury was properly instructed.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion for directed verdict in a criminal case, the court assesses the existence of evidence (not its weight) and must submit the case to the jury if any direct or circumstantial evidence reasonably supports guilt.
- Constructive possession may be inferred from control over premises plus knowledge of contraband and surrounding circumstances, even if the defendant is not present when contraband is discovered.
- Evidence seized in the area of a lawful arrest may be admissible as incident to that arrest, notwithstanding an invalid search warrant that requires suppression of other items.
- Testimony about contraband may be admissible when derived from an independent source, even if related physical items are suppressed.
- Improper prosecutorial argument does not require reversal absent a showing of prejudice not cured by sustained objections and curative jury instructions.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a marijuana-with-intent-to-distribute conviction based on evidence supporting constructive possession, allowed admission of items seized in the arrest room despite an invalid warrant, permitted independent-source testimony about additional contraband, and found no reversible error from challenged closing argument.


State v. Matarazzo, 262 S.C. 662, 207 S.E.2d 93 (S.C. 1974)