Constructive Drug Possession Expert Testimony Leads To Supreme Court Reversal
In the drug possession case of State v. Rahmann Reeds, one of the questions presented was whether expert testimony, presented by the prosecutor, regarding constructive possession of drugs located in a vehicle exceeded the scope of acceptable expert testimony in a drug
prosecution trial. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant suffered undue prejudice from the expert testimony, wherein, the expert expressed that the defendant constructively possessed
the drugs discovered in the car he was driving. This ultimate-issue opinion by the expert usurped the jury's singular role in the determination of defendant's guilt and incurably tainted the remaining trial proofs, producing an unjust result in defendant's trial.
In this case, the Supreme Court opined correctly that the expert's opinion on the issue of constructive possession was nothing more than a legal conclusion which decided the ultimate issue for the jury.
By: Thomas H. Martin, Esq.
what does constructive possession mean?