State v. Wood

19 Citing cases

  1. State v. Calo

    6 Wn. App. 2d 1046 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    . Calo also relies on State v. Wood, 45 Wn.App. 299, 309, 725 P.2d 435 (1986), and State v. Lewis, 32 Wn.App. 13, 645 P.2d 722 (1982). But these cases relied on Dictado, which was expressly rejected in Harris.

  2. State v. Smith

    No. 45757-1-II (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2014)

    And, contrary to Smith's apparent assertion, dominion and control does not need to be exclusive to support a finding of constructive possession. State v. Chavez, 138 Wn.App. 29, 34-35, 156 P.3d 246 (2007) (citing State v. Weiss, 73 Wn.2d 372, 375, 438 P.2d 610 (1968)); State v. Wood, 45 Wn.App. 299, 312, 725 P.2d 435 (1986)). Smith argues the evidence was insufficient to prove that he knew the model airplanes were in the garage.

  3. State v. Bohrer

    No. 44347-3-II (Wash. Ct. App. Jul. 1, 2014)

    Dominion and control need not be exclusive; the State can establish it through circumstantial evidence. State v. Wood, 45 Wn.App. 299, 312, 725 P.2d 435 (1986). A person's leasing of a premises allows the trier of fact to reasonably infer that the person has dominion and control over that premises, which in turn allows the trier of fact to reasonably infer that the person has dominion and control over items within that premises.

  4. State v. D.S

    155 Wn. App. 1011 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010)

    However, the State presented evidence that the mother identified the room as D.S.'s bedroom and that the bedroom contained items belonging to D.S. Dominion and control over premises need not be exclusive. State v. Wood, 45 Wn. App. 299, 312, 725 P.2d 435 (1986). A rational trier of fact could find that D.S. had dominion and control over his bedroom and had dominion and control over the firearm found in his bedroom.

  5. State v. Iata

    150 Wn. App. 1058 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009)

    Dominion and control need not be exclusive; the State can establish it through circumstantial evidence. State v. Wood, 45 Wn. App. 299, 312, 725 P.2d 435 (1986). The police found Blakeney in a bedroom in the apartment listed on the search warrant.

  6. State v. Balaski

    149 Wn. App. 1044 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009)

    Dominion and control need not be exclusive and can be established by circumstantial evidence. State v. Weiss, 73 Wn.2d 372, 375, 438 P.2d 610 (1968); State v. Wood, 45 Wn. App. 299, 312, 725 P.2d 435, review denied, 107 Wn.2d 1017 (1986). Here, Balaski admitted that she found a plastic bag that she believed contained methamphetamine and that she placed it inside her trailer.

  7. State v. Weighall

    146 Wn. App. 1047 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008)

    Dominion and control need not be exclusive and can be established by circumstantial evidence. State v. Weiss, 73 Wn.2d 372, 375, 438 P.2d 610 (1968); State v. Wood, 45 Wn. App. 299, 312, 725 P.2d 435 (1986). To determine whether a defendant was in constructive possession of an object, we look to the totality of the circumstances.

  8. State v. Lewis

    144 Wn. App. 1002 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008)

    "Dominion and control" does not have to be exclusive and can be established by circumstantial evidence. Chavez, 138 Wn. App. at 34; State v. Wood, 45 Wn. App. 299, 312, 725 P.2d 435, review denied, 107 Wn.2d 1017 (1986). We will look at the totality of the situation to determine if the defendant had dominion and control.

  9. State v. Chavez

    138 Wn. App. 29 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 18 times
    In Chavez, Division Three of this court held that the search of Chavez's wallet violated the Fourth Amendment because officers lacked probable cause to believe he was engaged in criminal conduct.

    Dominion and control need not be exclusive and can be established by circumstantial evidence. State v. Weiss, 73 Wn.2d 372, 375, 438 P.2d 610 (1968); State v. Wood, 45 Wn. App. 299, 312, 725 P.2d 435 (1986). ΒΆ13 To determine whether a defendant was in constructive possession of an object, we look to the totality of the circumstances.

  10. Jane Doe v. Latter-Day Saints

    122 Wn. App. 556 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 8 times

    When the trial court considers only documentary evidence to decide whether a privilege applies, we also review the evidence de novo. State v. Wood, 45 Wn. App. 299, 311, 725 P.2d 435 (1986).