concealed in a travel bag and his presence in a room containing marijuana smoke were insufficient to convict him.” Id. at 463, 697 A.2d 462. As we shall discuss, infra, in the instant case, appellant resided at the premises where the marijuana and cocaine were in plain view. An examination of the cases relied on in Taylor supports our view that the Taylor holding was not intended to encompass the facts of this case. In Taylor, the Court of Appeals reviewed the cases in which Maryland appellate courts have found that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In each of the cases addressed by Taylor, the controlled substance was in a closed container or outside of the plain view of the accused. Garrison, supra, a 24 (1969) (<HOLDING>); Wimberly v. State, 7 Md.App. 302, 308, 254
holding evidence insufficient to support conviction when none of the defendants had any proprietary interest nor previous association with the premises and there was no evidence of how long the defendants had been on the premises prior to the arrival of the police holding the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the premises owner when the evidence showed no one had been injured by the condition in question and the premises owner had received no complaints about the condition in question during a tenyear period holding that defendants adult son who was living on defendants property had equal control over use of premises and had authority to consent to a search holding that the trial court committed no error in sustaining objection to plaintiffs testimony that the water had been there for some time because the plaintiff had no personal knowledge of how long the puddle had been there holding premises owner had no duty to protect when the risk the police officer was subjected to was one inherent in that occupation