The purpose of the doctrine of constructive possession for PCS offenses, as demonstrated in practice in the case law, is to give appropriate effect to circumstantial evidence of possession of a contraband substance when everyone involved denies the right or ability to control the contraband found in proximity to them. See, e.g., State v. Williams, 253 Or 646, 456 P2d 489 (1969) (the defendant deemed to possess contraband narcotics in container, with his name on prescription label, that rolled from beneath pillow on his bed); State v. Coria, 39 Or App 507, 592 P2d 1057, rev den, 286 Or 449 (1979) (the defendant, passenger in car, was deemed to possess heroin hidden in storage bin near back seat that was within his reach); Nehl, 19 Or App at 592-93 (husband and wife both deemed to possess five kilograms of contraband marijuana hidden in cabinets and closets of their home); State v. Krohn, 15 Or App 63, 514 P2d 1359 (1973) (the defendant deemed to possess contraband marijuana hidden in car he owned and was driving); State v. Moore, 14 Or App 268, 511 P2d 880 (1973) (the defendant deemed to possess contraband barbiturates in dresser drawer in his bedroom); State v. Wikum, 6 Or App 405, 488 P2d 815 (1971) (the defendant deemed to possess 66 pounds of contraband marijuana hidden throughout car he owned and was riding in); State v. Montgomery, 3 Or App 555, 474 P2d

See also State v. Garcia, 120 Or. App. 485, 488, 852 P.2d 946 (1993) (constructive possession found where drugs found hidden in apartment where the defendant was staying and the defendant admitted to handling the bag of drugs);State v. Rider, 157 Or. App. 480, 483, 970 P.2d 258 (1998) (police officers heard either the defendant or a companion say, "[t]ime for a smoke break"). Other facts that can establish a link between a defendant's proximity to contraband and a right to control that contraband include identifying characteristics on the drug container, State v. Williams, 253 Or. 646, 647-48, 456 P.2d 489 (1969) (defendant constructively possessed drugs in vials that had labels identifying vials as belonging to defendant and other evidence suggested that defendant was a resident of the home); defendant's conduct indicating that he is under the influence of a controlled substance, Miller, 157 Or. App. at 492-93 (defendant in constructive possession of drugs found in back seat of car where the evidence showed that the defendant was a passenger in the car, appeared to be under the influence of controlled substances, and the drugs were found in close proximity to where defendant had been sitting and to his personal belongings); and a defendant's participation in a criminal conspiracy that involved the use of a contraband item, State v. Wrisley, 138 Or. App. 344, 349, 909 P.2d 877 (1995), rev den, 327 Or. 521 (1998) (evidence proving the defendant was part of a criminal conspiracy with individuals within the vehicle who were in actual possession of a weapon is sufficient to sustain a conviction fo

Here the evidence as to Count I is sufficient to support an inference that defendant knowingly exercised the right to control the barbiturate which was found in his dresser drawer. State v. Williams, 253 Or. 646, 456 P.2d 489 (1969). As to the pipe found in the bedroom there is no evidence at all as to control, right to control, or knowledge.

The assignment is without merit. State v. Rutherford, supra; State v. Williams, 253 Or. 646, 456 P.2d 489 (1969). The second assignment contends that the trial court erred in refusing defendant's motion made in advance of his calling of any witness, including himself, to enjoin the use of prior convictions to impeach the defendant's character.

We consider this to be evidence of control or right to control the drugs therein. It is a sufficient basis for the trial court's finding of fact. See also State v. Nasholm, 2 Or. App. 385, 467 P.2d 647, Sup Ct review denied (1970); State v. Williams, 253 Or. 646, 456 P.2d 489 (1969).

This evidence is sufficient to support a finding that defendant possessed the marihuana on the premises. Cf. State v. Williams, 253 Or. 646, 456 P.2d 489 (1969); State v. Henry, 249 Or. 287, 288-89, 437 P.2d 851 (1968). Assignment of error number four is not reviewable on appeal since it arose on defendant's plea of guilty to unlawful possession of dangerous drugs.

The "mere presence" cases relied upon by defendant, i.e., State v. Chandler, 2 Or. App. 107, 467 P.2d 127 (1970), and State v. Oare, 249 Or. 597, 439 P.2d 885 (1968), are not applicable here. The facts here are more analogous to State v. Williams, 253 Or. 646, 456 P.2d 489 (1969), and State v. Henry, 249 Or. 287, 288-89, 437 P.2d 851 (1968). Affirmed.

The evidence previously recapitulated, including the episode concerning the jacket, provided sufficient basis for the jury to have concluded that defendant knowingly was in possession of the marihuana taken from the jacket and that he was guilty of the crime as charged. Proof of possession can be by circumstantial evidence. State v. Williams, 253 Or. 646, 456 P.2d 489 (1969). There is no merit to defendant's other assignments of error, which were: (1) denial of motion for mistrial, and (2) denial of motion for change of venue.