This business of imputing state of mind to an instance of possession bothers me. If a guy possesses a pint of Turkey, does that imply intention sufficient to convict him of drunken driving and manslaughter, even though the tax stamp is unbroken? Possession of a rock of cocaine -- does that sufficiently imply armed robbery to go ahead and convict the possessor on apprehension?
It all sounds a little too Judge Dredd for me.
Defense motion for continuance denied -- Kaboom!