State v. Twitty
Annotate this CaseAfter a court-tried criminal trial, Defendant was found guilty of possession of a chemical with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance. Defendant appealed, arguing that the State did not present sufficient evidence that he possessed pseudoephedrine at the time detectives searched his residence. The evidence established that Defendant actually possessed pseudoephedrine on the date of the offense, despite the fact that no pseudoephedrine was found at Defendant’s residence at the time the detectives conducted their search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a reasonable inference drawn from the circumstances of this case is that Defendant actually possessed pseudoephedrine on the date of the offense.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.