Does Utah recognize an innocent possession defense for controlled substances? State v. Miller Explained

In State v. Miller, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether Utah’s controlled substances possession statute includes an implicit defense of innocent possession.

Background and Facts

Curtis Miller worked as a general contractor and hosted a party after completing a basement remodel project. After most guests left, an escort service arrived demanding payment for services ordered by a party guest who had already departed. When Miller refused to pay, threatening individuals returned to his home multiple times. While cleaning his apartment in preparation for his grandchildren’s visit, Miller found a prescription pill bottle and glass pipe on his coffee table. He placed both items in his pocket, intending to put the pills in his medicine cabinet and return them to their owner. Police arrested Miller for abusing the 911 system and found the prescription bottle containing oxycodone and hydrocodone in his pocket.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah Code section 58-37-8(2)(a)(i), which criminalizes knowing and intentional possession of controlled substances, implicitly includes a defense for innocent possession. The trial court rejected Miller’s proposed jury instruction on this defense.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court held that the possession statute implicitly includes an innocent possession defense. The court applied Utah’s directive that penal statutes should not be strictly construed but should promote justice and safeguard conduct without fault. The court reasoned that strictly construing “possess” to include every type of possession, whether culpable or innocent, would create absurd results and contradict legislative intent. The defense applies when: (1) the controlled substance was obtained innocently with no illicit purpose, and (2) possession was transitory, meaning the defendant took adequate measures to dispose of the substance as promptly as reasonably possible.

Practice Implications

This decision provides crucial protection for individuals who temporarily possess controlled substances without criminal intent. Defense attorneys should investigate whether possession was innocent and request appropriate jury instructions when the evidence supports this defense. The court’s reasonableness standard allows for possession longer than momentary if the defendant takes reasonable steps to return the substance to its lawful owner.