A.2d at 835 (“[I]t is elementary that mere presence is not, of itself, sufficient to establish that that person was either a principal or an accessory to the crime.”). Knowledge is an essential ingredient of the crime of possession of marijuana. Writing for the Court, Judge Eldridge discussed the knowledge requirement of § 287 in Dawkins v. State, 313 Md. 638, 649, 547 A.2d 1041, 1046 (1988): [A]n individual ordinarily would not be deemed to exercise ‘dominion or control’ over an object about which he is unaware. Knowledge of the presence of an object is normally a prerequisite to exercising dominion and control. The evidence in this case does not establish that Taylor had knowledge of the presence of the marijuana concealed in Myers’s, carrying bags. As clearly ind 711, 714 (1969) (<HOLDING>); Haley v. State, 7 Md.App. 18, 33, 253 A.2d
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 holding that the fortress theory applied where a firearm and marijuana were found on a night stand and cocaine was found in the same room as defendant had easy access to the firearm 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 the district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement where guns were found on the same premises from which the defendant trafficked drugs and were readily accessible to the defendant 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