of the lockbox and its contents is necessary to establish constructive possession. "[To prove that [Gonzalez-Camargo] had constructive possession of the [methamphetamine], the evidence must also show that he had the power and intent to exercise dominion or control over [it]." See State v. Fox, 709 P.2d 316, 320 (Utah 1985). In cases where contraband is discovered in a living space over which the defendant does not have exclusive control, "it cannot be inferred that he knew of the presence of such drugs and had control of them, unless there are other incriminating statements or cireum-stances tending to buttress such an inference." State v. Anderton, 668 P.2d 1258, 1264 (Utah 1983) (Durham, J., concurring) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Fox, 709 P.2d at 320 (<HOLDING>). For example, in State v. Workman, 2005 UT 66,
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 that a marijuana greenhouse located in an openly accessible shared area of property was not sufficient to support constructive possession absent additional evidence of intent to possess or control recognizing theory of constructive possession holding that constructive possession need not be exclusive but may be shared by others holding that evidence that the defendant lived in a home where marijuana was being cultivated was insufficient to support a finding of constructive possession