When a strong case is joined by a weak case, can the evidence support the possession of cocaine?

When a strong and weak case are joined, the concern is that the jury "would aggregate all of the evidence, though presented separately in relation to each charge . . . [and] the two cases would become, in the jurors' minds, one case which would be considerably stronger than either viewed separately." (Williams v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 441, 453-454.)

Defendant claims that the evidence supporting the possession count (count two) was weak. To the contrary, (1) the information given to the officers by one of the tenants associated defendant with the apartment, (2) defendant was found in the parking lot of the apartment complex, (3) the key to apartment 20 was found on defendant, and (4) court documents belonging to defendant were found in the apartment. All of these circumstances tied defendant to occupancy of the apartment. Defendant's inconsistent stories to the police about how and why he arrived at the apartment complex showed his consciousness of guilt. (People v. Showers (1968) 68 Cal.2d 639, 643 [false statements about incriminating circumstances may support inference of consciousness of guilt].) This is not weak evidence. It is sufficient to allow the jury to reasonably infer that defendant possessed cocaine.