Case Title: DANIEL EARL SHUMAKER V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: 06-33

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2007-09-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
DANIEL EARL SHUMAKER V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2007 WY 143167 P.3d 11Case Number: 06-33Decided: 09/07/2007
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
DANIEL 
EARL SHUMAKER,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE 
STATE OF WYOMING,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

            

Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofNatronaCounty

The 
Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Kenneth 
M. Koski, State Public Defender, PDP; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Tina 
N. Kerin, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael 
Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.

 
 
KITE, 
Justice.

            

[¶1]      Mr. Shumaker 
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction by a jury 
of possessing marijuana with intent to deliver.  He claims that the State failed to prove 
he possessed marijuana in violation of Wyoming statutes because law enforcement only 
recovered marijuana stems and seeds from his home.  Relying on the definition of marijuana 
set out in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1002(a)(xiv) (LexisNexis 2007), which exempts 
some types of marijuana stems and seeds, he claims the State was required to 
prove that the stems and seeds recovered from his home did not fall within the 
exemption and the State failed to satisfy that burden.  We conclude there was sufficient 
circumstantial evidence for the jury to conclude that he possessed marijuana 
prohibited by Wyoming statutes.  Consequently, we affirm.  

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Mr. Shumaker 
presents the following issue on appeal:

 
 
            
Was there insufficient evidence to convict appellant of possession of a 
controlled substance, marijuana, with intent to deliver, where the evidence 
presented during trial revealed that appellant possessed seeds and 
stems?

 
 
FACTS

            

[¶3]      On September 26, 
2004, Mr. Shumaker's girlfriend informed law enforcement that she had witnessed 
him sexually abusing her infant daughter.  
Law enforcement executed a search warrant for Mr. Shumaker's home in 
Casper, Wyoming and recovered a silver platter 
containing marijuana stems and seeds, together with other paraphernalia 
associated with drug use and sale.     

 
 
[¶4]      Mr. Shumaker was 
arrested and agreed to be interviewed by a detective.  During the interview, he admitted to 
possessing and using marijuana.  He 
also indicated that he had sold marijuana to friends.  The State charged him with five counts, 
including four counts pertaining to the alleged assault on the child and one 
count of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, marijuana, in 
violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann.  § 
35-7-1031(a) (LexisNexis 2007).     

 
 
[¶5]      The matter went 
to trial before a jury in June 2005.  
At the conclusion of the State's case-in-chief, defense counsel moved for 
a judgment of acquittal on all counts.  
The district court denied the motion, concluding there was sufficient 
evidence for the trial to continue.  
The jury returned a verdict acquitting Mr. Shumaker of the four assault 
counts but finding him guilty of the drug charge, and the district court entered 
a judgment on the jury's verdict.  
After the district court sentenced him, Mr. Shumaker filed a timely 
notice of appeal.     

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶6]      Mr. Shumaker 
claims the State did not present sufficient evidence to support the jury's 
conclusion that he was guilty of possessing marijuana with intent to 
deliver.  In determining whether 
sufficient evidence was presented to sustain Mr. Shumaker's conviction, we apply 
the following standard:

 
 
[W]e 
examine and accept as true the State's evidence and all reasonable inferences 
which can be drawn from it. We do not consider conflicting evidence presented by 
the defendant.  We do not substitute 
our judgment for that of the jury; rather, we determine whether a jury could 
have reasonably concluded each of the elements of the crime was proven beyond a 
reasonable doubt.  This standard 
applies whether the supporting evidence is direct or circumstantial.  

 
 
 
 

Martin 
v. State, 2007 WY 
2, ¶ 32, 149 P.3d 707, 715 (Wyo. 2007) citing Butcher v. State, 2005 WY 146, ¶ 16, 123 P.3d 543, 549 (Wyo. 2005).  See also, Garay v. State, 2007 WY 130, ¶ 2, ____ 
P.3d ____ (Wyo. 2007).  

 
 
DISCUSSION 

 
 
[¶7]      Mr. Shumaker was 
convicted of possession with intent to deliver marijuana in violation of § 
35-7-1031(a).1  The district court instructed the jury 
that in order to convict Mr. Shumaker of the charged crime it had to find that 
the State proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following 
elements:  

 
 

1.      
On or 
about the 26th day of September, 
2004

2.      
In 
NatronaCounty, State of Wyoming

3.      
The 
Defendant, Daniel Earl Shumaker

4.      
Possessed 
a controlled substance, [m]arijuana, with intent to deliver it to another 
person.

 
 
[¶8]      Mr. Shumaker's 
challenge on appeal is limited to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the 
jury's finding that the substance he possessed was illegal marijuana.  Mr. Shumaker's argument focuses on the 
definition of marijuana set out in § 35-7-1002 (a)(xiv) (emphasis 
added):

 
 
            
(xiv) "Marihuana" means all 
parts of the plant of the genus Cannabis, whether growing or not;  the seed thereof;  the resin extracted from any part of the 
plant;  and every compound, 
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the plant, its seeds or 
resin.  It does not include the mature stalks of the 
plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of 
the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or 
preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, 
oil or cake, or the sterilized seed of 
the plant which is incapable of germination[.]

 
 
He 
claims the State had the burden of proving that the stems and seeds recovered 
from his home were not "mature stalks" or "sterilized seed of the plant which is 
incapable of germination."  
Id.  
 

 
 
[¶9]      In response, the 
State argues that, as defendant, Mr. Shumaker had the obligation to prove the 
substances he possessed fell within the exemption.  In support of its argument, the State 
directs us to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1050(a) (LexisNexis 2007) which 
provides:

 
 
            
(a) It is not necessary for the state to negate any exemption or 
exception in this act2 in any complaint, information, 
indictment, or other pleading or in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding 
under this act.  The burden of proof 
of any exemption or exception is upon the person claiming 
it.

 
 
(footnote 
added).

 
 
[¶10]   After considering the record on 
appeal, we conclude it is unnecessary for us to decide which party had the 
burden of proving whether the stems and seeds recovered by 

law 
enforcement from Mr. Shumaker's home fell within the statutory definition of 
marijuana.  Instead, we conclude 
there was sufficient circumstantial evidence that he possessed illegal marijuana 
to sustain his conviction.  

 
 
[¶11]   In Urrutia v. State, 924 P.2d 965, 968 
(Wyo. 1996), 
we held:  "The prosecution may rely 
on circumstantial evidence to prove identity of the controlled substance because 
unlawful distribution of a substance, which by its nature is to be consumed, 
should not escape prosecution because the state could not seize a sample of the 
substance.'"  Id. at 968, quoting Lobatos v. State, 875 P.2d 716, 720 
(Wyo. 
1994).   See also, 28A C.J.S. Drugs and Narcotics § 244 (2007); 
William A. Harrington, LL.B., Annotation, Sufficiency of Prosecution Proof That 
Substance Defendant is Charged with Possessing or Selling, or Otherwise 
Unlawfully Dealing in, is Marijuana, 75 A.L.R.3d 717 (1977).  The specifics of Urrutia are pertinent to our analysis 
here.  Mr. Urrutia argued the State 
did not present sufficient evidence to support his conviction for possession 
with intent to deliver marijuana.  
He claimed the State did not prove "the substance he possessed was 
actually marijuana" because law enforcement did not recover any marijuana during 
the investigation.  Urrutia, 924 P.2d  at 968.  We held the following circumstantial 
evidence was sufficient to establish that Mr. Urrutia possessed marijuana:  1) he admitted he used marijuana; 2) he 
acknowledged he was present when marijuana sales were being completed; 3) a 
witness who was an experienced drug user testified he knew the substance he 
delivered to Mr. Urrutia was marijuana and small amounts of the substance were 
sold for substantial amounts of money.  
Id. 

 
 
[¶12]   In the case at bar, law enforcement 
recovered the following evidence from Mr. Shumaker's home:  a silver tray with marijuana stems and 
seeds; a scale; pipes and bongs for smoking marijuana containing marijuana 
residue; baggies used by drug dealers to package marijuana; and $345 in 
cash.  All of these items were 
located on or near a computer desk in Mr. Shumaker's living room.  In addition, Mr. Shumaker's girlfriend 
testified she had seen him use and sell marijuana.  Another witness, Arron Eggleston, who 
described himself as the "adopted" brother of Mr. Shumaker's girlfriend, 
testified he purchased marijuana from, and smoked it with, Mr. Shumaker several 
times during the month of September 2004.  
Mr. Eggleston also testified Mr. Shumaker kept the marijuana on a silver 
tray in his living room near his computer and that he charged $40 for one half 
ounce of the marijuana.      

 
 
[¶13]   Mr. Shumaker admitted to the 
detective who interviewed him that he smoked marijuana and had, on occasion, 
sold it to his friends.  He also 
testified at the trial:  

 
 

Q.                
* * 
*  Daniel, you heard that there were 
--- there was marijuana found in your apartment; correct?

 
 

A.                 
Correct.

 
 

Q.                
In what 
form was that marijuana?

 
 

A.                 
That was 
the last of many a sack.  I mean, it 
was stems and seeds.  I had no more 
pot.  I just finished smoking it, so 
that's why when the cops arrested me, you know, I was more than willing to go 
because I'm  I don't know.  I 
didn't really think that I was going to get in that much trouble.  I figured the paraphernalia would have 
been my problem, not stems and seeds.

 
 
Q.        And Daniel, what 
were you planning on doing with the stems and seeds that were found in your 
apartment?

 
 

A.                 
Throwing 
them away.  I mean, there's nothing 
that you do with stems and seeds.

 
 
[¶14]   This evidence was sufficient to 
support the jury's conclusion that, on or about September 26, 2004, Mr. Shumaker 
possessed illegal marijuana as defined in § 35-7-1002(a)(xiv).  The facts that law enforcement only 
recovered stems and seeds when they searched his home and no specific evidence 
was presented at trial to establish whether the seeds and stems were or were not 
exempt from the statutory definition of marijuana did not preclude a finding 
that he had possessed illegal marijuana.  
In fact, when the stems and seeds are considered together with the other 
evidence, including the paraphernalia and Mr. Shumaker's admission that the 
stems and seeds were what was left of "many a bag" and he had "just finished" 
smoking the rest of the marijuana before law enforcement arrived, it is obvious 
sufficient circumstantial evidence existed to allow the jury to conclude that 
Mr. Shumaker had possessed marijuana in violation of Wyoming statutes.  

 
 
[¶15]   Affirmed. 

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Section 
35-7-1031(a) states in relevant part:

 
 
            
(a) Except as authorized by this act, it is unlawful for any person to 
manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to manufacture or deliver, a 
controlled substance.  Any person 
who violates this subsection with respect to:

 
 
* * 
*

            
     (ii) Any 
other controlled substance classified in Schedule I, II or III, is guilty of a 
crime and upon conviction may be imprisoned for not more than ten (10) years, 
fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), or both[.]   

            
            

2Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
35-7-1002(a)(xxviii)  states: "This 
act' means W.S. 35-7-1001 through 35-7-1060" which includes the provision at 
issue here, § 35-7-1031.