State v. Sinclair

Summary

The concurrence agrees that the judgment should be affirmed but would avoid deciding whether admission of the Jeep inspection information violated the Constitution or was erroneous as an evidentiary matter. It concludes that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because overwhelming evidence established that the defendant constructively possessed the narcotics. The concurrence also agrees that the defendant failed to establish that alleged prosecutorial improprieties deprived him of a fair trial.