of the contraband. Wagner, 950 So.2d at 513. Where premises are jointly occupied and “contraband is discovered in plain view in the presence of the owner or occupant[,]” the circumstances are “sufficient to support a conviction for constructive possession.” Brown, 428 So.2d at 252. An inference of knowledge and dominion and control may also arise where the contraband located in jointly occupied premises is found in or about other personal property which is shown to be owned or controlled by the defendant. See Holland, 975 So.2d at 598 (stating that discovery of contraband “in close proximity to [defendant’s health insurance] card and other belongings” was “direct evidence connecting [defendant] to the contraband from which a jury could infer actual knowledge”); Wale, 397 So.2d at 740 (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Fossett, 119 N.H. 155, 399
holding the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant possessed contraband found in the kitchen of a residence where the defendant was found in the nearby bathroom attempting to dispose of contraband down the toilet holding evidence that marijuana was found in jointly occupied vehicle in open view was insufficient to establish defendants dominion and control by preponderance of evidence holding that the defendants dominion control and knowledge may be inferred if he had exclusive possession of the premises on which the object was found emphasis added holding that if the site where the contraband is found is in joint rather than exclusive possession a defendants knowledge of the contrabands presence and his ability to control it cannot be inferred merely from the defendants proximity to the contraband holding that circumstance that contraband was found in a box bearing defendants name was sufficient to support an inference of knowledge and dominion and control