PER CURIAM.
In this narcotics case, appellant had the substance (marihuana) in his hands rather fleetingly. It was inside of envelopes. There is no direct evidence he knew the contents. But there was a background of circumstantial evidence, and we think it was for the jury to decide whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, he knowingly possessed the "stuff," albeit there was some conflict in the evidence.
Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean a mathematical certainty...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
