People v. Valot

I dissent because it is not a crime to be in control of a room where marijuana is found and because the people failed to prove that the defendant, Harold Eugene Yalot, Jr., was in possession or control of marijuana.

Time and again the courts of this and other states have ruled that where the people’s case is based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution has the burden of proving “that there is no innocent theory possible which will, without violation of reason, accord with the facts”. People v. Millard (1884), 53 Mich 63, 70; People v. Spann (1966), 3 Mich App 444, 454; People v. Morrow…