When must trial courts give innocent possession jury instructions? State v. Rivera Explained

In State v. Rivera, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when trial courts must provide jury instructions on the innocent possession defense for controlled substances, offering important guidance for criminal practitioners defending drug possession charges.

Background and Facts

Rivera took her boyfriend’s drugs and put them in her purse to prevent his continued drug use. When the boyfriend and his brother threatened her at gunpoint, demanding the drugs back, Rivera fled and armed herself with a concealed firearm for protection. Police later discovered both the gun and drugs in her possession. Rivera requested jury instructions on both innocent possession and compulsion defenses, which the trial court denied.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Rivera presented sufficient evidence to warrant an innocent possession instruction for the controlled substance charge. The defense requires two elements: (1) the defendant acquired the substance innocently without illicit purpose, and (2) possession was transitory—meaning adequate measures were taken to dispose of the substance as promptly as reasonably possible.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed Rivera’s drug possession conviction, finding the trial court erred in denying the innocent possession instruction. While the trial court correctly found Rivera met the first element—acquiring drugs to prevent boyfriend’s use rather than for illegal purposes—it incorrectly concluded no evidence supported the transitory possession element.

The court emphasized that Rivera faced life-threatening circumstances, tried to call police, left her purse behind when fleeing, and “spaced” that she even had the drugs due to the rapidly evolving situation. Whether Rivera took “adequate measures” under these circumstances was properly a jury question, not a matter for the court to decide.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that defendants need not present direct evidence of disposal attempts to warrant innocent possession instructions. Circumstantial evidence showing the defendant was preoccupied with immediate threats to safety can support a reasonable inference that possession was transitory. Trial courts should allow juries to determine whether “adequate measures” were taken under the specific circumstances presented, particularly when defendants face emergency situations that prevent typical disposal methods.