presence in a room in which marijuana had been smoked, and his awareness that marijuana had been smoked, cannot permit a rational trier of fact to infer that Taylor exercised a restraining or directing influence over marijuana that was concealed in personal carrying bags of another occupant of the room. Id. at 463, 697 A.2d 462. We do not consider Taylor controlling in the instant case. As recognized by the Taylor Court, “convictions for possession cannot stand when the evidence does not establish, nor provides any reasonable inferences to establish, that the accused exercised dominion or control over the contraband.” Id. at 461, 697 A.2d 462. In Taylor, the evidence was insufficient because the drugs were located in a closed bag and “his mere proximity to the contraband fo 711 (1969) (<HOLDING>). In this case, unlike Taylor and the cases it
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 when drugs are found on premises exclusive control provides significant proof of constructive possession 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 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 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