747, 752 (1996) (evidence sufficient where “defendant was alone, driving an unregistered vehicle, and the cocaine was plainly visible on the floor in front of the driver’s seat, an area where the defendant had easy access and control”) Alicea v. Maguire & Helle Sachse, Massachusetts Criminal Law Sourcebook & Citator 2010, at 102–03 (MCLE, Inc. As such ‘the jury could have inferred that the defendant had placed it there or had at least known of its existence.”’ Hon. “In Nichols there was evidence of heroin in various generally inaccessible locations in the defendant’s apartment, i.e., behind a linen closet shelf and under the kitchen sink. It is fairly clear that knowledge may, and indeed often must, be proved by circumstantial evidence.

knowledge of the law is not required, i.e., the defendant does not need to “have known that there is a law that makes it a crime to” do the act for which the defendant is charged.

knowledge must be personal, i.e., “not what a reasonable person would have known, but what this particular defendant actually did or did not know at the time” and.

The supplemental instructions to Model Jury Instruction 3.140 state that

Instruction 3.140, Criminal Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District Court (Administrative Office of the District Court 2009) (collecting cases). Ou may examine the defendant’s actions and words, and all of the surrounding circumstances, to help you determine the extent of the defendant’s knowledge at that time. You should consider all of the evidence, and any reasonable inferences you draw from the evidence, in determining whether the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as it must, that the defendant acted with the knowledge. Instruction 3.140 notes that determining whether the defendant possessed the element of knowledge requires making a “decision about the defendant’s state of mind at that time” by looking “to the actions of in order to decide what state of mind is.” The jury is further instructed as follows: Model Jury Instruction 3.140 for the District Court defines knowledge as doing an act “voluntarily and intentionally, and not because of mistake, accident, negligence or other innocent reason.”

If the charge is trafficking or possession with intent to distribute or another more serious offense, the required elements are merely refined to add that additional factor.

Generally, in each and every case, regardless of the drug offense, the Commonwealth, at a minimum, is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant In any drug case, the essential elements are basically the same.

4 elements of crime