by Dawkins, without knowledge of the presence of marijuana in the room, it is not possible for Petitioner to have exercised dominion or control over the marijuana, another required ingredient of the crime of possession. The facts and circumstances, considered in the light most favorable to the State, do not justify any reasonable inference that Petitioner had the ability to exercise, or in fact did exercise dominion or control over the contraband found in the room. Although the evidence in this case might form the basis for a strong suspicion of Petitioner’s guilt, suspicion is insufficient to support a conviction. “[M]ere proximity to the drug, mere presence on the property where it is located, or mere association, without more, with the person who does control the 582-83 (1970) (<HOLDING>); Wimberly v. State, 7 Md.App. 302, 308, 254
holding that jurys failure to find the defendant guilty of possession of marijuana could not be reconciled with a verdict of guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to purchase holding circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish that defendant sold a usable amount of marijuana holding that a defendants conviction for two possession of marijuana counts could not be supported by his possession of two marijuana cigarettes dropped from his hand and again for his possession of several packets of marijuana found in a nearby jacket during the same search holding that possession of marijuana is not protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment holding conviction for possession that rests only on defendants cooccupancy of apartment where marijuana was sold and on defendants intimate relationship with a cooccupant who sold marijuana is not supported by sufficient evidence