Owens v. State

I fully concur in Divisions 2 and 3 of the majority opinion, but respectfully dissent to Division 1 because I believe that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support Owens’s (Appellant’s) conviction for possession of methamphetamine, and it did not exclude the reasonable hypotheses that the methamphetamine was discarded by the front seat passenger, another motorist, or a pedestrian.

[T]he relevant question on appeal from denial of the general grounds of a motion for new trial is “whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier…