2005 UT 66, ¶ 31, 122 P.3d 639. 117 To establish constructive possession, the State must " 'prove that there was a sufficient nexus between the accused and the drug to permit an inference that the accused had both the power and the intent to exercise dominion and control over the drug"" Id. (quoting State v. Fox, 709 P.2d 316, 319 (Utah 1985)). Whether a sufficient nexus exists " 'depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case'" Id. (quoting Fox, 709 P.2d at 319). In determining whether a sufficient nexus exists to establish con (Utah 1983) (Durham, J., concurring) (stating that a spouse's joint ownership and occupancy of a home where drugs are found is insufficient to establish constructive possession); Spanish Fork City v. Bryan, 1999 UT App 61, ¶¶ 2, 10-11, 975 P.2d 501 (<HOLDING>). Instead, the defendant's joint occupancy of
holding that evidence that the defendant lived in a home where marijuana was being cultivated was insufficient to support a finding of constructive possession holding that a spouses joint occupancy of a home where drug paraphernalia was found was insufficient to establish the spouses constructive possession recognizing theory of constructive possession holding that home purchased with spouses separate funds prior to marriage was transmuted into marital property because mortgage payments made from joint account home was used as marital residence and both parties devoted resources and energy into home holding that evidence supported finding of constructive possession of concealed narcotics in part because narcotics paraphernalia was found in residence