PEOPLE OF MI V ROBERT MICHAEL SCHNEIDT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 25, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 231389
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 98-163540-FH
ROBERT MICHAEL SCHNEIDT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Gage and Meter, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from his jury trial conviction of possession of less than
twenty-five grams of marijuana, MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v). Defendant was sentenced to one-year
probation, costs and fees. We affirm.
Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence adduced at
trial to support a finding that he possessed the marijuana that was found in his home. We
disagree. “When reviewing a claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court
examines the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if a rational jury
could find that the essential elements of the offense were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
People v Joseph, 237 Mich App 18, 20; 601 NW2d 882 (1999).
In the evening of September 23, 1998, eight officers from the Madison Heights Police
Department executed a search warrant for drugs and narcotics at defendant’s residence.
Defendant’s wife allowed the officers to enter the home. Defendant’s wife and three children
were eating in the living room. Three officers proceeded to the master bedroom, where they
encountered defendant and another man. Within moments, one of the officers saw, in plain
view, what he believed to be a marijuana cigarette on a black plastic tray next to the TV. Inside
the black tray, the officers also discovered the residue of marijuana cigarettes and other
marijuana paraphernalia. Defendant testified that the marijuana cigarette belonged to the other
man.1 The other man also produced a small baggy the police suspected also contained
marijuana. Both defendant and the police agree that defendant told them where to look in the
bedroom for an additional approximately eight ounces of marijuana. Their testimony differs
1
This other man had died as of trial.
-1-
only in that one of the officers testified that defendant pointed them directly to the headboard of
the only bed in the room, whereas defendant claimed that he identified several places where it
might be because he was not sure of its exact location. Defendant’s wife testified that the drugs
found in the bedroom belonged to her.
There was no evidence adduced at trial that defendant was in actual possession of the
marijuana when the police entered the bedroom. However, “[a] person need not have actual
physical possession of a controlled substance to be guilty of possessing it. Possession may be
either actual or constructive.” People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 520-521; 489 NW2d 748 (1992).
We conclude that viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence introduced at
trial was sufficient to establish defendant’s constructive possession over the marijuana. The
marijuana was found in defendant’s home and in the bedroom he admits he shared with his wife.
The marijuana cigarette was in plain view of the bed where defendant was sitting. An additional
approximately eight ounces of marijuana was located in the headboard of the bed, where
defendant had indicated it would be found. See People v Head, 211 Mich App 205, 210; 535
NW2d 563 (1995). We disagree with defendant that this evidence established only an
association with the drug. People v Davenport, 39 Mich App 252, 257; 197 NW2d 521 (1991).
Defendant also argues that the prosecution failed in disproving every innocent theory that
might accord with the facts. Specifically, defendant asserts that the evidence shows that either
the other man or defendant’s wife actually possessed or owned the marijuana. This argument
fails for two reasons. First and foremost, the prosecution “is not obligated to disprove every
reasonable theory consistent with innocence to discharge its responsibility; it need only convince
the jury ‘in the face of whatever contradictory evidence the defendant may provide.’” People v
Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000), quoting People v Konrad, 449 Mich 263,
273, n 6; 536 NW2d 517 (1995). Second, “possession may be found even when the defendant is
not the owner of recovered narcotics. Moreover, possession may be joint, with more than one
person actually or constructively possessing a controlled substance.” Wolfe, supra at 521.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-2-
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.