State of Tennessee v. Thaddaeus Medford - Dissenting

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the evidence is not sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. While the proof in this case is less than overwhelming, I would hold that the circumstantial evidence is sufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was the source of the cocaine found by the police officers. The only other explanation for the cocaine’s presence on the roadside is that some unknown person placed it there, either intentionally or accidentally. While I agree that an accused’s mere proximity to drugs is not alone sufficient to support a finding that the accused possessed them, there are additional circumstances in this case which are indicative of the Defendant’s guilt. As acknowledged by the majority, the facts and circumstances supporting a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence “must be so strong and cogent as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save the guilt of the defendant.” State v. Crawford, 470 S.W.2d 610, 612 (Tenn. 1971) (emphasis added). I do not think that any other reasonable hypothesis explains the presence of the cocaine found in this case, other than the Defendant’s possession of it.