( People v. Redrick (1961) 55 Cal.2d 282, 285 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 823, 359 P.2d 255]. See also People v. Showers (1968) 68 Cal.2d 639, 642-643 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 459, 440 P.2d 939]; People v. Winston (1956) 46 Cal.2d 151, 158-161 [ 293 P.2d 40]; People v. Gorg (1955) 45 Cal.2d 776, 780 [ 291 P.2d 469]; People v. Gory (1946) 28 Cal.2d 450, 454-456 [ 170 P.2d 433]; People v. Solorio (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 914]; People v. Juvera (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 569, 573 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 653]; People v. Estrada (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 435, 437 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 308]; People v. Stanford (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 388, 390 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 425]; People v. Tabizon (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 271, 273 [ 332 P.2d 697]; People v. Jackson (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 772, 778 [ 331 P.2d 218]; and People v. Rodriguez (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 598, 601 [ 312 P.2d 272].) Moreover, it is recognized "that proof of opportunity of access to a place where narcotics are found, without more, will not support a finding of unlawful possession."
Each of these elements may be proved by circumstances which will inferentially show "constructive possession" when added together. ( People v. Solorio, 232 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 914]; People v. Juvera, 214 Cal.App.2d 569, 573 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 653]; People v. Estrada, 185 Cal.App.2d 435, 437 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 308]; People v. Stanford, 176 Cal.App.2d 388, 390 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 425].) See Note.
[4] The actions of appellant in this case are indicative of his knowledge of the character of the substance he possessed and the unlawfulness of its possession. (See People v. Solorio, 232 Cal.App.2d 527 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 914]; People v. Torres, 98 Cal.App.2d 189 [ 219 P.2d 480]; People v. Dewson, 150 Cal.App.2d 119 [ 310 P.2d 162].) The judge in this case passed upon the credibility of the witnesses, and resolved whatever conflicts there were.