1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 52893-2-II

Respondent,

v.

JAMES HENDERSON LISTOE, PUBLISHED OPINION

Appellant.

CRUSER, J. — James Listoe appeals his convictions of possession of methamphetamine 

with intent to deliver and possession of a controlled substance (Suboxone). He argues that he is 

entitled to a new trial because the trial court employed an improper standard under GR 37 when it 

allowed the State to exercise a peremptory challenge excusing the only juror who was a member 

of a racially cognizable group. Listoe also argues that there was insufficient evidence that he 

possessed methamphetamine and Suboxone. 

We hold that, under the totality of the circumstances, an objective observer aware of 

implicit bias could view race as a factor in the State’s use of the peremptory challenge. We also 

hold that there was sufficient evidence that Listoe had constructive possession over the 

methamphetamine and the Suboxone discovered in the car that he was driving.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Filed

Washington State

Court of Appeals

Division Two

November 10, 2020
No. 52893-2-II

2

FACTS

I. LISTOE’S ARREST

On May 11, 2018, Deputy Andrew Hren of the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office observed a 

black car parked at a 7-Eleven convenience store. On running the license plate, Hren discovered 

that the car’s registration had expired. The car pulled out of the 7-Eleven parking lot, Hren got 

behind it and pulled it over. Listoe, who was driving the car, did not pull over immediately but 

traveled for about 1,000 feet first, which Hren believed was uncommon. 

As Hren approached the car, he could see Listoe making “a bunch of movements with his 

hands.” 2 Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) at 193. Listoe opened the door and began to step 

out, but Hren ordered him to get back in the car. Hren observed Listoe making additional “furtive 

movements” in his lap area. Id. Hren then ordered Listoe to place his hands on the steering wheel, 

and Listoe complied. Hren informed Listoe of the reason for pulling him over, and Listoe 

responded that the car was not his and that he did not know the registration was expired. 

Rhonda Lemon was sitting in the car’s passenger seat. After briefly speaking to Lemon, 

Hren told Lemon that she was free to leave, and she left. Lemon was not searched during the 

encounter. 

Hren ordered Listoe out of the vehicle and placed Listoe under arrest.1 During the search 

incident to Listoe’s arrest, Hren found a plastic bag that contained a white crystalline substance on 

Listoe’s person. The substance appeared to be methamphetamine. Listoe also had $221 in his 

wallet. 

 

1 Listoe was arrested on an unrelated warrant. Listoe’s counsel made a motion in limine asking the 

trial court to prohibit any mention of the basis for the arrest. The trial court granted the motion. 
No. 52893-2-II

3

A K-9 unit alerted to the presence of controlled substances in the car Listoe was driving. 

Due to the K-9 alert, Hren obtained a search warrant to search the interior of the vehicle for 

additional evidence of controlled substances. Hren and Deputy Stanley Langlow searched the 

vehicle. Behind the driver’s seat, Hren discovered a black reusable grocery bag that contained a 

white grocery bag and fruits and vegetables. The white bag, in turn, contained a black zippered 

pouch, liquor bottles, and a package of sublingual Suboxone strips.2 The zippered pouch contained 

a notepad with a name and phone number, a digital scale, a plastic Tupperware container that had 

white residue, a factory packaged plastic bag with syringes, and a mint container that contained 

shards of a white crystalline substance that Hren believed was methamphetamine. The substance 

weighed approximately six and a half grams. 

Hren and Langlow also searched the car for any indication of Listoe’s “possession and 

control” over the vehicle. Id. at 218. They did not find any evidence specifically tying Listoe to 

the vehicle. The deputies did not obtain fingerprints off the zippered pouch or any other items in 

the grocery bags because the nature of the plastics and metals and the condition of the zippered 

pouch made it unlikely that a good sample could be collected. 

The white crystalline substance found on Listoe’s person during the search incident to 

arrest was tested at the crime lab and confirmed to be methamphetamine. The amount, weighing 

3.3 grams, was consistent with a personal use quantity. The substance inside the mint container 

was also confirmed to be methamphetamine. The quantity of methamphetamine in the mint 

 

2 Suboxone is a pain reliever that is also used in treatment of opiate addiction. 
No. 52893-2-II

4

container exceeded the amount typically associated with personal use and was indicative of 

dealing. 

Listoe was charged with one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to 

manufacture or deliver and one count of possession of a controlled substance (Suboxone). 

II. JURY SELECTION AND TRIAL

The case proceeded to trial. While defense counsel was questioning prospective jurors 

during voir dire, he asked the venire whether anyone agrees with the saying “it’s better to let a 

guilty person go free than to lock up an innocent person or maybe to let ten guilty people go free 

than to lock up an innocent person.” 1 VRP at 112. One juror expressed agreement with that 

sentiment. Defense counsel expanded further,

Sometimes I get people who disagree with that. Again, there’s no wrong answers. 

If you think, I would rather punish an innocent person than let a guilty person go 

free, you’re not going to get into any kind of trouble. I just want to know it. 

Id. at 113. Juror 17 made some kind of expression that caused defense counsel to ask, “No. 17, 

you’re just laughing at me?” Id. Juror 17 explained, 

Just the situation and how things are. Personal experience being innocent -- people 

being innocent and still getting in trouble. Just smirking at that. I’ve seen it happen. 

I know it happens.

Id. Juror 17 then explained that his job, if selected for the jury, is to “take everything in and to look 

at everything thoroughly to make sure that we don’t have anybody that’s innocent get in trouble 

for something they didn’t do.” Id.

During the State’s voir dire, the State presented a hypothetical scenario to the prospective 

jurors. The prosecutor asked the venire to imagine that a law exists prohibiting making, selling, or 

eating cookies and that the prosecutor was charged with eating a cookie. The prosecutor asked the 
No. 52893-2-II

5

jury to assume there was video surveillance footage, “a million witnesses,” and plenty of 

photographs all confirming that the prosecutor ate a cookie. Id. at 131-32. The prosecutor directed 

the questions toward Juror 17, the only Black individual in the venire, first. The following 

exchange took place,

[THE STATE]: Juror 17, what would you do?

[JUROR 17]: I would question the law, period, to be honest with you.

[THE STATE]: Like I said, why this is a law, I have no idea. But the law is the law. 

That’s the law. The evidence is what I said. You know, it’s on ten different 

surveillance cameras, a bunch of photographs, a million witnesses. What do you do 

as a juror?

[JUROR 17]: Take it all into account. I mean, you have to because of the law, but 

I would still question law. Like you’re just eating a cookie. Why is it even a law?

[THE STATE]: Good question for your politicians; right? So you said -- what 

would you say you would do?

[JUROR 17]: I would have to take all the evidence in, because there’s obviously a 

law. I would still question that law, just period.

[THE STATE]: Would you have any problems convicting me for eating the cookie?

[JUROR 17]: Yes.

[THE STATE]: Because of the law?

[JUROR 17]: Yes.

[THE STATE]: Okay. So the law is -- I will say -- I mean, it’s kind of a like 

hyperbolic. It’s a ridiculous sounding law, to make a point. So the law -- if you 

disagree with the law, would you have problems following it?

[JUROR 17]: Yeah.

Id. at 132-33. Juror 17 described a law that he recalled from Arkansas, where it was previously 

illegal to mispronounce the name of the state. The State asked Juror 17 if he would have 

reservations about convicting an individual that had been recorded mispronouncing the word 

“Arkansas,” assuming that law was still in effect. Id. at 136. Juror 17 responded “[i]t’s just for the 

principles,” and he agreed the law was “just silly.” Id.

The State repeated the cookie law hypothetical and asked 10 other potential jurors whether 

they would have any hesitation convicting under the fictional law, and each juror responded 

immediately that he or she would have no hesitation convicting. Of those 10 other jurors, only 
No. 52893-2-II

6

Juror 7 expressed that “[t]here might be some reservations, but the rules -- everyone knows the 

rules ahead of time.” Id. at 134. Juror 7 was eventually stricken from the venire.3 The State asked 

once more, to the entire venire, whether anyone would “have a problem convicting me for making 

and selling my own cookies?” and there was no response. Id. at 139. 

Following voir dire, the State used a peremptory challenge to dismiss Juror 17. Listoe 

objected to the State’s peremptory challenge using the court’s GR 37 form. The State explained 

that it based the peremptory challenge on Juror 17’s responses to the cookie hypothetical, as well 

as his statement regarding the law against mispronouncing the word “Arkansas.” Id. at 161-62. 

The State believed that Juror 17 indicated an inability to follow the law. Listoe contended that this 

explanation would not survive under the new, objective standard applied to peremptory challenges 

because the hypothetical did not demonstrate an unwillingness to follow real world laws. 

The trial court cited GR 37(e) and, in accordance with the rule, stated that it would base its 

decision on the “totality of the circumstances,” and that the peremptory challenge would be denied 

“[i]f the court determines that an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the 

use of this peremptory challenge.” Id. at 162-63. 

In applying the standard, the trial court explained,

when Juror 17 made the comments that [the State] indicated concerning the cookies, 

that it was clear that there was some concern over the fact that it was -- it’s been 

termed a lot of different ways, a silly example, the cookie example. He very clearly 

said that he would not be able to follow the law if that was the law because of his 

feelings that it was silly. 

He also made the comment concerning the way to pronounce Arkansas or 

“Arkansas,” again, with the idea of the issue of following the law, and I think that 

that is not something that would disqualify this peremptory challenge. 

 

3

It is not clear from this record whether Listoe or the State used a preemptory challenge to strike 

Juror 7. 
No. 52893-2-II

7

The peremptory challenge can be denied if an objective observer could view 

race or ethnicity as a factor, but simply the factors that I see clearly raised is one of 

the factors is -- No. 17 is a [B]lack man, so race is one of the issues that needs to 

be addressed by the Court. 

But his comments concerning his inability to follow the law in the example 

of the hypothetical that was given by [the State] does not -- could lead an objective 

observer to view that that would be the reason why the use of the peremptory was, 

rather than race or ethnicity, so I’m going to allow for the peremptory challenge.

Id. at 163-64. After the trial court allowed the peremptory challenge, the trial court affirmed on 

the record that Juror 17 was the only Black juror on the venire. 

During trial, the witnesses testified consistently with the facts as summarized above. Listoe 

made a motion to dismiss the charges at the close of the State’s case, arguing that the State failed 

to present sufficient evidence of either actual or constructive possession of the items discovered in 

the car related to intent to deliver. The trial court denied this motion. 

At the close of the case, Listoe requested an unwitting possession instruction. The trial 

court agreed, and the unwitting possession instruction was submitted to the jury. 

The jury found Listoe guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and

possession of a controlled substance (Suboxone). Listoe was given a prison-based Drug Offender 

Sentencing Alternative4sentence of 90 months, with 45 months to be served in confinement and 

the remainder to be served in community custody. 

Listoe appeals his convictions. 

 

4 Former RCW 9.94A.660 (2016). 
No. 52893-2-II

8

DISCUSSION

I. PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE

Listoe argues that the trial court improperly applied GR 37 when considering his objection 

to the State’s peremptory challenge of Juror 17. Listoe asserts that the trial court “turned the GR 

37 analysis on its head,” when the trial court determined that a persuasive race-neutral reason 

existed justifying the State’s use of the peremptory challenge. Br. of Appellant at 13. Listoe claims 

that the proper consideration is whether an objective observer could find that race was a factor, 

and, if so, the peremptory challenge must be denied. Listoe argues that because the peremptory 

challenge was used to strike the only member of a racially cognizable group, an objective observer 

could view race or ethnicity as a factor and the peremptory challenge should not have been 

allowed. 

The State contends that the trial court engaged in the proper analysis because the trial court 

considered whether an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of the 

peremptory challenge, and its ruling was not predicated on the persuasiveness of the State’s raceneutral justification. The State asserts that (1) the circumstances the court should consider pursuant 

to GR 37(g) all tend to demonstrate that Juror 17 was not treated disparately as compared to other 

jurors, (2) none of the historically discriminatory reasons under GR 37(h) apply to this case, and 

(3) there is no evidence in the record that the peremptory challenge was based on an assertion of 

the negative behavioral factors in GR 37(i). 

We hold that the State was improperly permitted to peremptorily strike Juror 17. Because 

we sit in the same position as the trial court and review the record de novo, we may look beyond 

the State’s proffered justification for the peremptory challenge. An objective observer aware of 
No. 52893-2-II

9

implicit bias could view race as a factor in the State’s exercise of the peremptory challenge because 

Juror 17 only expressed discomfort rather than an unwillingness to convict based on a hypothetical 

law. In addition, Juror 17 stated that he has personally known innocent individuals who have been 

found guilty, but that is “how things are.” 1 VRP at 113. Finally, Juror 17 was the sole member of 

a racially cognizable group, an objective observer aware of implicit bias could view race as a factor 

in the State’s exercise of the peremptory challenge.

A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES

GR 37 provides that, either a party or the court “may object to the use of a peremptory 

challenge to raise the issue of improper bias.” GR 37(c). After an objection has been raised, the 

party exercising a peremptory challenge is required to articulate its reasons for doing so. GR 37(d). 

The trial court then evaluates the reasons for exercising the challenge under the totality of the 

circumstances. GR 37(e). If “an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the 

use of the peremptory challenge, then the peremptory challenge shall be denied.” GR 37(e) 

(emphasis added). GR 37(f) defines “objective observer” as one who “is aware that implicit, 

institutional, and unconscious biases, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in the 

unfair exclusion of potential jurors in Washington.” 

This standard represents a deliberate departure from the federal Batson5test that was 

previously used to evaluate whether a peremptory challenge was racially motivated. State v. 

Jefferson, 192 Wn.2d 225, 243, 429 P.3d 467 (2018) (plurality opinion). Under Batson, the party 

contesting the peremptory challenge is required to first make a prima facie showing giving rise to 

an inference that the challenge was exercised for a discriminatory purpose. Jefferson, 192 Wn.2d 

 

5 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986).
No. 52893-2-II

10

at 232; Batson, 476 U.S. at 94. Next, the burden shifts to the party exercising the challenge to 

provide a race-neutral justification. Jefferson, 192 Wn.2d at 232; Batson, 476 U.S. at 97. Finally, 

if the party exercising the challenge is able to provide such a justification, the court would next 

consider whether the party contesting the peremptory challenge has demonstrated purposeful 

discrimination. Jefferson, 192 Wn.2d at 232; Batson, 476 U.S. at 98.

Despite Washington’s previous adherence to the Batson test, Washington courts recently 

departed from the Batson formulation in favor of a new test. The Batson formulation is considered 

deficient by Washington courts because it requires a party contesting a peremptory challenge to 

demonstrate purposeful discrimination, which is difficult to prove “‘even where it almost certainly 

exists.’” Jefferson, 192 Wn.2d at 242 (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting City of Seattle v. 

Erickson, 188 Wn.2d 721, 735, 398 P.3d 1124 (2017)). In addition, this formulation failed to take 

into account the realities of implicit or unconscious racial bias. Id. 

The Washington Supreme Court has addressed the challenge of proving purposeful 

discrimination by creating a bright-line rule that the first step of making a prima facie showing is 

established whenever a peremptory challenge is exercised to dismiss the only individual from a 

“racially cognizable group.” Erickson, 188 Wn.2d at 734. This reformulation of the first step, 

however, did not resolve “ongoing concerns of unconscious bias,” nor did it address the best 

approach to the third step of the Batson test. Jefferson, 192 Wn.2d at 241.

GR 37 was created with the specific objective of addressing Batson’s deficiencies. Id. at 

243. Echoing the language used in GR 37(e), the court reframed the third step in the Batson test to 

consider whether “‘an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of the 

peremptory challenge,’” as opposed to whether the proponent of the peremptory strike is acting 
No. 52893-2-II

11

with purposeful discrimination. Id. at 249. Under GR 37, there is no longer any requirement of 

making a prima facie showing of racial discrimination and “simple citation” to the rule is sufficient 

to compel an analysis pursuant to its provisions. GR 37(c). 

GR 37 does not provide guidance to us regarding which standard of review we should apply 

when considering the propriety of a trial court’s decision following a peremptory challenge. 

However, in Jefferson, the court stated that when considering whether an objective observer could 

view race or ethnicity as a factor, a reviewing court “stand[s] in the same position as does the trial 

court.” 192 Wn.2d at 250. The court rejected the prior “‘clearly erroneous’” standard as too 

deferential. Id. Accordingly, the question of whether an objective observer could view race or 

ethnicity as a factor in a peremptory challenge is subject to de novo review. Id. 

Under GR 37(g), when evaluating the justification for a peremptory challenge, a court may 

take the following nonexclusive factors under consideration:

(i) the number and types of questions posed to the prospective juror, which 

may include consideration of whether the party exercising the peremptory 

challenge failed to question the prospective juror about the alleged concern or the 

types of questions asked about it;

(ii) whether the party exercising the peremptory challenge asked 

significantly more questions or different questions of the potential juror against 

whom the peremptory challenge was used in contrast to other jurors;

(iii) whether other prospective jurors provided similar answers but were not 

the subject of a peremptory challenge by that party;

(iv) whether a reason might be disproportionately associated with a race or 

ethnicity; and

(v) whether the party has used peremptory challenges disproportionately 

against a given race or ethnicity, in the present case or in past cases.
No. 52893-2-II

12

In addition, a court may look to GR 37(h), which provides a list of presumptively invalid 

reasons that cannot justify a peremptory challenge because these reasons have been historically 

“associated with improper discrimination in jury selection in Washington State.” Similarly, certain 

types of conduct have also been associated with historically discriminatory peremptory challenges 

and cannot be relied upon as a justification absent proper notice and corroboration from the judge 

or opposing counsel. GR 37(i). 

B. ANALYSIS

In viewing the totality of the circumstances, an objective observer aware of the realities of 

implicit bias could view race as a factor in the State’s peremptory challenge. First, the Supreme 

Court has previously recognized evidence of a discriminatory purpose when “the sole member of 

a racially cognizable group has been struck from the jury.” Erickson, 188 Wn.2d at 734.

In addition, Juror 17 expressed some skepticism of the criminal justice system based on his 

personal experience and the experiences of people he knows. Juror 17 attributed this perception to 

“the situation and how things are.” 1 VRP at 113. Although the State did not rely on these 

comments when exercising the peremptory challenge, Juror 17’s comments echo justifications for 

exclusion from a jury that have historically been associated with discrimination. For example, 

parties are no longer permitted to rely on expressions of distrust of law enforcement or statements 

regarding “having a close relationship with people who have been stopped, arrested, or convicted 

of a crime,” as reasons to exclude someone from a jury. GR 37(h)(ii), (iii). 

The State contends that race was not a factor in Juror 17’s exclusion from the jury because 

other jurors were asked the same questions, but most of the other jurors did not express any 

reservation convicting the individual who ate the cookie. Moreover, the State claims the record 
No. 52893-2-II

13

does not contain any evidence demonstrating that the State’s proffered reason for striking Juror 17 

has been “‘disproportionately associated with [a] race or ethnicity.’” Br. of Resp’t at 10 (quoting 

GR 37(g)(iv)). Even if true, implicit racial bias and disparate experiences might still be a factor 

when the only member of a racially cognizable group on the venire provides a different response 

to a hypothetical scenario from almost all the other prospective jurors. 

Finally, although Juror 17 expressed discomfort at the idea of convicting an individual for 

violating a “ridiculous sounding law,” he never stated that he would refuse to follow the law or 

that he would vote to acquit in spite of the evidence.61 VRP at 133. The State posed a question 

based on a hypothetical law that, although silly and nonsensical, would involve a significant 

interference with liberty. The State then asked Juror 17 if he would have a “problem[]” convicting 

someone of violating this law. Id. But asking someone if they have a problem convicting someone 

of violating a plainly ridiculous law is not the same as asking them whether they would follow the 

law as given to them by the court. Any rational person would have a problem with convicting 

someone for eating a cookie. Instead, when asked what he would do as a juror, Juror 17 explained 

that he would “[t]ake it all into account. I mean you have to because of the law.” Id. at 132. And 

although he would “still question that law, just period,” Juror 17 recognized that he would “have 

to take all the evidence in, because there’s obviously a law.” Id.

Even if the State’s race-neutral justification was persuasive, under GR 37, a court’s task is 

to determine whether an objective observer aware of implicit bias could view race or ethnicity as 

 

6

If the State, in exercising the peremptory challenge, perceived Juror 17’s responses regarding the 

hypothetical laws as evincing bias in reference to the action, or as indicating an inability to consider 

the matter impartially, then the State could have challenged the juror for cause under RCW 

4.44.170(2). 
No. 52893-2-II

14

a factor. GR 37(e). Given that Juror 17 was the only Black member of the venire, that Juror 17 was 

the only juror who voiced some skepticism with the criminal justice system due to his personal 

experience, and that Juror 17 merely expressed discomfort at the idea of convicting someone under 

a hypothetical scenario involving a ridiculous law, an objective observer aware of implicit, 

institutional, and unconscious bias could view race as a factor in the State’s exercise of this

peremptory challenge.7

In so holding, we do not mean to suggest that the State, in exercising the challenge, acted 

with a discriminatory purpose or that the State acted with unconscious or implicit bias. Whereas 

the prior Batson formulation required the party contesting use of a preemptory challenge to prove 

such a discriminatory purpose, GR 37 represents a sweeping change that focuses instead on the 

perspective of an objective observer who is presumed to be aware that implicit, institutional, and 

unconscious bias, as well as purposeful discrimination, have all contributed to the unfair exclusion 

of jurors.

8

In light of the totality of the circumstances, and in consideration of GR 37’s purpose of 

creating a more scrupulous approach to eliminating the unfair exclusion of jurors on the basis of 

 

7 Here, although the trial court initially articulated the correct standard when summarizing its task 

pursuant to GR 37(e), its reasoning recalled the standard rejected by the Supreme Court in 

Jefferson. 192 Wn.2d at 249. The trial court allowed the peremptory challenge because it 

determined that an objective observer could conclude that the State had a race-neutral justification 

for the challenge. In effect, the trial court’s construction required Listoe to demonstrate purposeful 

discrimination. Such a showing is no longer necessary under GR 37. Id. at 242. 

8 The goals of Batson and its progeny were not only to protect a defendant’s “right to be tried by 

a jury whose members are selected by nondiscriminatory criteria,” but also to protect, under the 

Equal Protection Clause, an individual juror’s “right not to be excluded . . . on account of race.” 

Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 404, 409, 111 S. Ct. 1364, 113 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1991). 
No. 52893-2-II

15

implicit or unconscious bias, the State was improperly permitted to exercise the peremptory 

challenge. 

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE9

Listoe claims that there was insufficient evidence that he had constructive possession over 

the methamphetamine and Suboxone discovered on the back floorboards of the car he was driving. 

Listoe asserts that evidence was insufficient because (1) the car was not his, (2) the officers did 

not find evidence proving that Listoe had dominion and control over the car and its contents, and 

(3) the drugs on the rear floor of the car could have reasonably belonged to Lemon. In addition, 

Listoe explains that because the amount of methamphetamine discovered on his person during the 

search incident to arrest was consistent with personal use, if the State did not provide sufficient 

evidence of his constructive possession over the items in the car, the evidence does not support his 

conviction of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver.

The State contends that there was sufficient evidence that Listoe had dominion and control 

over the items in the backseat. The State argues that dominion and control need not be exclusive 

to establish constructive possession, and even if the jury believed the items in the backseat 

belonged to Lemon, taken in the light most favorable to the State, there was sufficient evidence 

that Listoe constructively possessed the evidence in the vehicle. 

We hold that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Listoe had constructive 

possession over the items the officers discovered in the back of the car. The facts that (1) Listoe 

was driving the vehicle, (2) Listoe had methamphetamine on his person, which is one of the same 

 

9 We address Listoe’s insufficiency of the evidence argument because reversal on this basis would 

result in dismissal with prejudice and prohibit a retrial. State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97, 99, 954 

P.2d 900 (1998).
No. 52893-2-II

16

drugs found in the back of the vehicle, and (3) Deputy Hren observed Listoe making furtive 

movements while taking an uncommonly long time to pull over, provide sufficient evidence of 

constructive possession to support Listoe’s convictions. 

A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES

1. Standard of Review 

To determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, we consider 

whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. 

Cardenas-Flores, 189 Wn.2d 243, 265, 401 P.3d 19 (2017). The defendant admits the truth of the 

State’s evidence, and we must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom 

in the light most favorable to the State. Id. at 265-66. Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence 

are considered equally reliable. Id. at 266. We will not review the finder of fact’s credibility 

determinations. Id.

2. Constructive Possession 

Possession can either be actual or constructive. State v. Reichert, 158 Wn. App. 374, 390, 

242 P.3d 44 (2010). Whereas actual possession requires an individual to have physical custody of 

a given item, constructive possession may be shown where the individual has “dominion and 

control” over that item. Id. Control need not be exclusive to establish possession, and more than 

one person can be in possession of the same item. State v. George, 146 Wn. App. 906, 920, 193 

P.3d 693 (2008). 

We examine the totality of the circumstances and look to a variety of factors to determine 

whether an individual has dominion and control over an item. State v. Lakotiy, 151 Wn. App. 699, 

714, 214 P.3d 181 (2009). For example, we may consider whether the individual could readily 
No. 52893-2-II

17

convert the items to his or her actual possession. State v. Jones, 146 Wn.2d 328, 333, 45 P.3d 1062 

(2002). We may also consider the defendant’s physical proximity to a given item. State v. 

Chouinard, 169 Wn. App. 895, 899, 282 P.3d 117 (2012). However, physical proximity, without 

more, is insufficient to establish constructive possession. Jones, 146 Wn.2d at 33. 

Finally, we may also consider whether the defendant had dominion and control over the 

broader premises in which the item was located. State v. Shumaker, 142 Wn. App. 330, 334, 174 

P.3d 1214 (2007). “When a person has dominion and control over a premises, there is a rebuttable 

presumption that the person has dominion and control over items on the premises.” Reichert, 158 

Wn. App. at 390. But mere knowledge that an item exists on the premises is insufficient to establish 

dominion and control. Chouinard, 169 Wn. App. at 899. 

In cases where the defendant was driving a vehicle that the defendant owned, courts have 

found sufficient evidence that the defendant had dominion and control over the vehicle’s premises 

and its contents. State v. Bowen, 157 Wn. App. 821, 828, 239 P.3d 1114 (2010); State v. Turner, 

103 Wn. App. 515, 523-24, 13 P.3d 234 (2000). We have also previously upheld a conviction of 

unlawful possession of a firearm on a theory of constructive possession where the driver of the 

vehicle was not the owner of the vehicle. State v. Echeverria, 85 Wn. App. 777, 780, 783, 934 

P.2d 1214 (1997). Conversely, where the appellant was a passenger, rather than a driver, and the 

passenger did not own the vehicle, some courts have found that the appellant did not have 

dominion and control over the premises and its contents. See, e.g., Chouinard, 169 Wn. App. at 

902-03; George, 146 Wn. App. at 923; State v. Cote, 123 Wn. App. 546, 550, 96 P.3d 410 (2004). 
No. 52893-2-II

18

B. ANALYSIS

Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact 

could have found that Listoe had constructive possession over the items discovered in the back of 

the car. Even if the items discovered in the car could have belonged to Lemon, the State was not 

required to prove that Listoe had exclusive control over the items to establish constructive 

possession. See George, 146 Wn. App. at 920.

The fact that Listoe was driving the car weighs in favor of finding that Listoe had dominion 

and control over the vehicle and its contents. We have found sufficient evidence of dominion and 

control over a vehicle even where the vehicle did not belong to the driver, but the contraband was 

in plain sight and within reach. Echeverria, 85 Wn. App. at 783. 

The fact that fruits and vegetables, which are perishable items, were discovered in the same 

reusable black grocery bag as the white bag containing the contraband, shows that these items 

likely belonged to either Listoe or Lemon. It is unlikely that perishable items were left in the car 

by a prior driver or passenger. Further, Listoe’s furtive hand movements on two occasions, as well 

the fact that Listoe drove an uncommonly long distance before pulling over, raise an inference that 

he was handling the contraband at that time, or possibly strategizing about where to hide it. This 

same fact could also support a reasonable inference that Listoe could convert dominion and control 

over the items in the vehicle into his actual possession. In addition, because Hren found 

methamphetamine on Listoe’s person during the search incident to arrest, and methamphetamine 

was also discovered in the back of the vehicle, a rational trier of fact could infer that the 

methamphetamine in the back of the vehicle belonged to Listoe as well. 
No. 52893-2-II

19

While the above facts may not have been sufficient to establish constructive possession in 

isolation, taken together, they would lead a rational trier of fact to find that Listoe had constructive 

possession over the items in the back of the vehicle he was driving. Consequently, Listoe’s 

convictions for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and his conviction for 

possession of Suboxone are supported by sufficient evidence. 

CONCLUSION

We hold that the State’s peremptory challenge should not have been allowed over Listoe’s 

GR 37 objection because an objective observer could have viewed race or ethnicity as a factor in 

the use of the peremptory challenge to strike the only Black individual from the venire. We also 

conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence of constructive possession to sustain Listoe’s 

convictions.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial. 

CRUSER, J. 

I concur:

SUTTON, A.C.J.
No. 52893-2-II

20

MELNICK, J. (concurring)—I respectfully concur with the majority opinion’s result, but I 

write separately to explain my reasoning as it relates to the application of GR 37.

GR 37 is a burden shifting rule. Either a party or the court can first raise the issue of 

improper bias when an attempt is made to exclude a potential juror based on race or ethnicity. GR 

37(a), (c). Once an objection is raised, the party exercising the peremptory challenge must 

articulate the reasons for its challenge. GR 37(d). The court is then charged with determining 

whether the reasons, based on the totality of the circumstances, justify the peremptory excuse. “If 

the court determines that an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use 

of the peremptory challenge,” the court shall deny the challenge and it shall explain its reasons on 

the record. GR 37(e) (emphasis added). Neither race nor ethnicity is defined in GR 37.

10

“[A]n objective observer is aware that implicit, institutional, and unconscious biases, in 

addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in the unfair exclusion of potential jurors in 

Washington State.” GR 37(f). The test in GR 37 involves an objective inquiry. State v. Jefferson, 

192 Wn.2d 225, 249, 429 P.3d 467 (2018).11 “For that reason, we stand in the same position as 

does the trial court, and we review the record and the trial court’s conclusions . . . de novo.” 

 

10 By comparison, the United States Census Bureau, based on instructions from the Office of 

Management and Budget, distinguishes between race and ethnicity. “The Census Bureau defines 

race as a person’s self-identification with one or more social groups.” 

https://www.census.gov/mso/www/training/pdf/race-ethnicity-onepager.pdf. For ethnicity, the 

2020 census bureau asks if the person is of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin. Questions Asked 

on the Form, U.S. Census 2020, https://2020census.gov/en/about-questions.html (last visited Oct. 

26, 2020). The census bureau asks about no other ethnic groups. Questions Asked on the Form, 

Supra.

11 Although Jefferson pre-dated the implementation of GR 37, it utilized the same test as the rule 

and rejected the test of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), 

which was the rule at the time this case went to trial.
No. 52893-2-II

21

Jefferson, 192 Wn.2d at 250. We, therefore, conduct de novo review to peremptory challenges of 

prospective jurors that are allegedly based on race or ethnicity. 

In ruling, the court shall consider a nonexclusive list of circumstances, of which the 

following is relevant, “whether the party has used peremptory challenges disproportionately 

against a given race” by striking the only minority member of the jury pool. GR 37(g)(v).

12

 GR 

37 should also be read in conjunction with RCW 2.36.080(3) which prohibits the exclusion of a 

potential juror “on account of membership in a protected class recognized in RCW 49.60.030,”

13

and with Washington’s Constitution, which prohibits questioning of a person based on religious 

beliefs. WASH. CONST. art. I, § 11.

The application of these rules on appellate review is difficult. I concur with the majority 

because GR 37 requires the peremptory challenge to be denied if an objective observer could view 

race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge, not whether we would or do 

 

12 My review of the record de novo demonstrates that none of the other circumstances listed in GR 

37(g) could lead an objective observer to view race as a factor in the use of the peremptory 

challenge, and none is challenged by James Listoe. 

13 The protected classes in this statute are broader than those contained in GR 37. “The right to be 

free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration 

status, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of 

any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a 

person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right.” RCW 49.60.030(1). In 

addition, it is unclear as to which category the test enunciated in Jefferson applies or if a traditional

Batson test applies. 
No. 52893-2-II

22

view race or ethnicity as a factor. In other words, the rule requires reversal when, based on pure 

speculation, an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of the 

peremptory challenge.14 The present case falls within these parameters. 

I also find the application of de novo review to be difficult. I do not know how we can 

stand in the same position as the trial court when reviewing a cold record. In this case, James 

Listoe challenged the State’s use of a peremptory challenge. The court then stated that the 

prospective juror “is an apparent minority member of our jury panel.” 1 Report of Proceedings 

(RP) at 161 (emphasis added). In ruling on the challenge, Listoe stated that the challenged juror 

“was the only African American on the jury panel,” and the court agreed that it “appears to be the 

case.” 1 RP at 164 (emphasis added). The court then denied Listoe’s challenge.15 We cannot 

review these parts of the record de novo because we cannot observe the potential jurors. 

The test for whether a person is of a particular race or ethnicity seems to be based on the 

visual observations of the court and the parties. It is not based on self-identification. I find the 

application of GR 37 in this matter to be challenging. I find it hard to imagine that any judge or 

 

14 Many people commented on this aspect of GR 37during the comment period prior to its 

adoption. Comments for GR 37—Jury Selection, WASH. CTS.,

https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.commentDisplay&ruleId=537 (last 

visited Oct. 26, 2020).

15 I agree with the majority opinion that the trial court utilized an improper test, but since we review 

de novo, that is of no consequence in my reasoning. 
No. 52893-2-II

23

lawyer would be able to determine every potential juror’s race solely through visual observation.16, 

17

A de novo review of the record on appellate review poses many problems. Although we 

are supposed to put ourselves in the position of the trial court, we are unable to view the jury panel. 

We are unable to determine the racial and ethnic make-up of the potential jurors de novo.18 

Therefore, we do not stand in the same place as the trial court. 

In making this observation, I emphasize this point because, even if we accept that the 

challenged juror “appears to be the only African American,” we do not know that he is. We cannot 

review the accuracy of that statement. In addition, I point out that “African American” may mean 

 

16 Mistaking a person to be a member of a racial group through visual observations is suspect. As 

an example, I point to the well-publicized case of Rachel Dolezal who formerly acted as president 

of the Spokane chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 

(NAACP). She “identified as black” although her parents disagreed. Allison Samuels, Rachel 

Dolezal’s True Lies, VANITY FAIR July 19, 2015), 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/07/rachel-dolezal-new-interview-pictures-exclusive; 

Credibility of Local NAACP Leader Rachel Dolezal Questioned, SPOKESMAN-REV.,

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jun/11/board-member-had-longstanding-doubts-abouttruthfu/ (last updated June 11, 2015); Family Says Spokane NAACP Head Falsely Portrays Herself 

as Black, CHI. TRIB. (June 12, 2015), https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-spokanenaacp-president-race-20150611-story.html. Her physical appearance was of no help in 

determining her race or ethnicity. The same is true of a more recent case involving Jessica Krug. 

Michael Levenson, Professor Investigated for Posing as Black Has Resigned, University Says, 

N.Y. TIMES (Sept. 9, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/us/jessica-krug-georgewashington-university.html. In addition, the 1961 non-fiction book Black Like Me by John 

Howard Griffin is illuminating on this topic.

17 I would encourage everybody to review the following website, take the test, and see how 

difficult, if not impossible, it is to determine race and ethnicity based solely on observations. 

Sorting People: Can You Tell Somebody’s Race by Looking at Them?, PBS,

https://www.pbs.org/race/002_SortingPeople/002_00-home.htm (LAST VISITED OCT. 26, 2020).

18 I underscore that viewing and determining the racial and ethnic composition of the jury is a 

problem in and of itself. 
No. 52893-2-II

24

something different than Black.19, 20 The inquiry involves only having the parties and the judge 

identifying the race and ethnicity of the potential jurors, but does not consider how the jurors selfidentify.21

In concurring, I want to be clear that I agree that we need to eliminate the unfair exclusion 

of potential jurors based on race or ethnicity.22 But I find appellate review of GR 37 to be difficult 

 

19 In a recent video podcast, Emmanuel Acho explained simply that not all black people in this 

country are African American and that many prefer to be called Black. “The most simple and 

shortest answer is [calling Black people] ‘black’ because it’s not only most accurate, it’s also least 

offensive. Keep in mind not all black people in America are African. There are Jamaicans, there 

are Cubans, but also there’s some black people that don’t identify as African because that heritage 

got stripped from them during slavery.” Emmanuel Acho, Episode 2: Featuring Matthew 

McConaughey, UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATIONS WITH A BLACK MAN (undated), at 0 min., 54 

sec. to 1 min., 14 sec., https://uncomfortableconvos.com/episode/episode-2. 

20 For a more thorough discussion on this issue, Cindy Adams, Not all black people are African 

American. Here’s the difference. CBS NEWS (June 18, 2020), 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/not-all-black-people-are-african-american-what-is-thedifference/; John Elignon A Debate Over Identity and Race Asks, Are African-Americans ‘Black’ 

or ‘black’?, N.Y. TIMES (June 26, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/black-africanamerican-style-debate.html. 

21 This issue becomes more complex if there is a challenge to an excused juror based on ethnicity. 

In addition, even though GR 37 is not applicable to peremptory challenges that implicate genderbased discrimination, Batson applies. J.E.B v. Alabama ex rel T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 114 S. Ct. 1419, 

128 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1994). However, the same issues identified above that only involve visual

observations by the trial judge and the parties, are problematic for both appellate courts and trial 

courts. 

22 For a more detailed look at this issue, I recommend Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and 

Redemption” by Bryan Stephenson (2014).
No. 52893-2-II

25

and problematic.23 Because an objective observer could have viewed race as a factor in the use of 

the peremptory challenge to Juror 17, I concur in the result. 

Melnick, J.

 

23 I also want to be clear that I am not in any way supporting the elimination of peremptory strikes. 

They have a place in litigation, including but not limited to allowing parties to strike potential 

jurors who could not be excused for cause, but who may not get along with other jurors, or who 

may have, or think they have, specialized knowledge, or who may seem partial. They help select 

a well-balanced jury. Importantly, if the parties participate by selecting the jury, they will be more 

willing to accept its verdict.