1 CA-CR 07-0177-91122

858 P.2d 1152, 1191 (1993). “Error, be it constitutional or
otherwise, is harmless if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.”
Id.
37 The State argues that any error in the admission of
the improper hearsay should be found harmless in light of the
other evidence of Defendant’s guilt presented at trial.
Even
though there was substantial evidence to support the verdicts,
“[t]he inquiry . . . is not whether, in a trial that occurred
without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been
rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in
this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” Id.
(quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 (1993)).
38 Defendant was not present at the warehouse when it was
searched and the marijuana operation discovered.
While he had
been at the warehouse on two prior occasions in the company of
others involved in the operation, the evidence presented through
the police witnesses regarding his involvement was
circumstantial.
It has long been held that "mere presence of
the defendant where narcotics or marijuana is found is
insufficient to establish that he knowingly possessed or
exercised dominion and control over the drugs.”
State v. Van
Meter, 7 Ariz. App. 422, 427, 440 P.2d 58, 63 (1968). There was
20