J. Ronald Storey, Dothan, for appellant. In a prosecution for possession of illegal drugs, there must be evidence from which a jury may conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the presence of the drugs, especially where constructive possession is relied upon. Parks v. State, 46 Ala. App. 722, 248 So.2d 761; Rueffert v. State, 46 Ala. App. 36, 237 So.2d 520; Daniels v. State, 49 Ala. App. 654, 275 So.2d 169; Davis v. State, 40 Ala. App. 609, 119 So.2d 236. Mere presence of a defendant without some act showing dominion or control is not sufficient to establish the requisite knowledge of the presence of the drugs or to prove a defendant guilty of aiding or abetting in illegal possession and therefore would not support a conviction of possession. Garsed v. State, 51 Ala. App. 622, 288 So.2d 161; Parks v. State, 46 Ala. App. 722, 248 So.2d 761, supra; Radke v. State, 52 Ala. App. 397, 293 So.2d 312, Id. 292 Ala. 290, 293 So.2d 314; Deas v. State, 44 Ala. App. 472, 213 So.2d 412. A defendant is entitled to have granted his motion to exclude the State's evidence where the only possible basis for an inference of guilt on the part of the defendant as to the particular and specific charge against him is mere presence. Parks v. State, supra; Arnold v. State, 30 Ala. App. 115, 2 So.2d 316; Id. 241 Ala. 245, 2 So.2d 319.

Even where the conduct of a juror is improper and irregular, a mistrial is not warranted if the defendant was not prejudiced. Satterfield v. State, 212 Ala. 349, 102 So. 691. Counsel with knowledge of a matter that is objectionable or grounds for a mistrial may not remain silent and gamble on a favorable verdict and if unfavorable, then raise it later. Daniels v. State, 49 Ala. App. 654, 275 So.2d 169. BOOKOUT, Judge.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Randolph P. Reaves, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. In a prosecution for unlawful possession of narcotics, it is not necessary to prove manucaption, but constructive possession may be shown. Daniels v. State, 49 Ala. App. 654, 272 So.2d 169. HARRIS, Judge.

In a prosecution for unlawful possession of narcotics, it is not necessary to prove manucaption but constructive possession may be shown, and where such possession is relied upon the State must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew of the presence of the prohibited substance. Daniels v. State, 49 Ala. App. 654, 275 So.2d 169; Ruffend v. State, 46 Ala. App. 36, 237 So.2d 520; Spruce v. State, 43 Ala. App. 487, 192 So.2d 747. HARRIS, Judge.

Marlow, 888 S.W.2d at 420 (internal quotations and citations omitted). See also Daniels v. State, 49 Ala.App. 654, 275 So.2d 169, 172 (1973) ("[F]ailure of the appellants to raise the question of the disqualification of the juror . . . before trial by advising the court or making some appropriate objection or motion to invoke a ruling by the court, was a waiver."); People v. Henry, 254 Ill. App.3d 899, 194 Ill.Dec. 109, 627 N.E.2d 225, 227-28 (1993) ("[T]he defendant did not ask the court to disqualify [the juror].

In addition, Alabama cases dealing with the predecessor to the Controlled Substances Act proceeded on the assumption that knowledge is an essential prerequisite to conviction for possession. Radke v. State, 292 Ala. 290, 293 So.2d 314 (1974); Daniels v. State, 49 Ala. App. 654, 275 So.2d 169 (1973); Rueffert v. State, 46 Ala. App. 36, 237 So.2d 520 (1970); Parks v. State, 46 Ala. App. 722, 248 So.2d 761 (1971). Likewise, in the analogous area of laws concerning the possession of illegal alcoholic beverages, the courts have invariably considered knowledge to be an essential element of the offense.

But when the presence of the accused at the scene is established and evidence of his knowledge of the presence of the prohibited substance is shown, along with any other incriminating evidence, the issue of the defendant's guilt should be submitted to the jury. Knowledge of the presence of the prohibited substance may be established by circumstantial evidence, and guilt does not depend on ownership. Parks v. State, 46 Ala. App. 722, 248 So.2d 761; Daniels v. State, 49 Ala. App. 654, 657, 275 So.2d 169. It appears from the statement of facts in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals in this case that the defendant first learned of the presence of the marijuana at the scene.

Fisher v. State, 587 So.2d 1027, 1035 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) (quoting Daniels v. State, 49 Ala.App. 654, 275 So.2d 169, 172-73 (1973)). We find no plain error in the trial court's not sua sponte removing for cause prospective jurors J.A. and Mi.B.

‘Counsel with knowledge of a disqualification of a juror may not remain silent and gamble on a favorable verdict and if unfavorable, raise the matter in a motion for new trial.’ Daniels v. State, 49 Ala.App. 654, 275 So.2d 169, 172–73 (1973).”). The fact that Juror S.D. was related by marriage to a State's witness did not require that he be excused for cause.

'Daniels v. State, 49 Ala. App. 654, 275 So. 2d 169, 172-73 (1973).").