With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". unproductive to try to formulate a standard of appellate review in terms of a hypothesis of innocence, because inevitably it appears to intrude upon the role of the fact finder. As we shall see in the case before us, the State’s evidence supported reasonable inferences of Defendant’s relationship to the gun that the jury was entitled to draw in finding possession beyond a reasonable doubt. {21} Given that both Defendant and the driver had equal access to the gun, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the State needed something more than physical proximity to establish Defendant’s control. However, unlike the Court of Appeals, we are persuaded that the State presented sufficient additional evidence to meet its burden. See State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶28, 135 N.M. 621, 92 P.3d 633 (<HOLDING>); Bauske, 86 N.M. at 486, 525 P.2d at 413

A: holding enhancement applicable where the record supported conclusion that drugs were stored and cut in the same location as the guns even though a search of the location yielded no drugs
B: holding evidence establishing the intent of the defendants to distribute drugs also permits the inference they intended to exercise dominion over them to demonstrate constructive possession
C: holding other than location of the drugs state presented evidence establishing direct connection between drugs and accused thereby creating inference of control
D: holding evidence was insufficient to establish preponderance of evidence of appellants ability to control drugs where drugs found in compartment on back of passenger seat and appellant was sole backseat passenger
C.