selling narcotics, she had made no inculpatory remarks, there were no “fresh needle marks” on her body, and there was no “juxtaposition between her (in the front bedroom) and contraband being jettisoned by her husband in the bathroom.” Id. at 130-31, 321 A.2d at 771. Judge O’Donnell then surveyed numerous cases of the Court of Special Appeals, some of them factually similar to the instant case, in which convictions for possession of contraband were reversed for insufficient evidence. The recurrent theme of these cases is that convictions for possession cannot stand when the evidence does not establish, nor provides any reasonable inference to establish, that the accused exercised dominion or control over the contraband. See Tucker v. State, 19 Md.App. 39, 45, 308 A.2d 696, 699 (1973) (<HOLDING>); Barksdale v. State, 15 Md.App. 469, 475, 291
holding evidence insufficient to establish defendant had physical or constructive possession of heroin when no drugs were found on his person and the only drugs discovered on the premises which he shared with the codefendant were secreted out of plain view holding when drugs are found on premises exclusive control provides significant proof of constructive possession holding evidence insufficient for conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances when the drugs were not found on the person of or in the same room as the defendant but were only found on other persons on the premises holding evidence insufficient to establish defendant had physical or constructive pos session when the drugs that were discovered in a hotel room that he shared with a codefendant were secreted and out of plain view holding evidence insufficient for conviction of possession of marijuana amphetamines and barbiturates when those drugs were not found on the person of or in the same room as the defendant but were only found on other people on the premises