NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. 

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE 

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, 

v.

NATHAN WESLEY WILLIAMSON, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0107 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR2022-116533-001 

The Honorable Monica S. Garfinkel, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL 

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix 

By Cory Engle 

Counsel for Appellant 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix 

By Karen Moody 

Counsel for Appellee

FILED 12-28-2023
STATE v. WILLIAMSON 

Decision of the Court 

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. 

F O S T E R, Judge: 

¶1 Nathan Williamson appeals his two drug-related convictions. 

He contends that the superior court erred by denying his Motion for 

Judgment of Acquittal because the State presented insufficient evidence to 

support the verdicts. This Court disagrees and affirms his convictions. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶2 Police stopped a vehicle registered to Williamson, and driven 

by his wife, for a traffic violation. Williamson was in the passenger seat. 

During the stop, police found drug paraphernalia and five grams of 

methamphetamine in the center console. They also discovered 

paraphernalia and methamphetamine residue inside a small case on the 

passenger-side floorboard. 

¶3 Williamson was indicted on two charges: possession or use of 

dangerous drugs and possession or use of drug paraphernalia. After the 

State presented its case, Williamson moved for a judgment of acquittal 

under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20 alleging there was 

insufficient evidence to support a conviction. The court denied the motion, 

finding that reasonable persons could accept the State’s evidence as 

sufficient to warrant a conviction. The jury found Williamson guilty of both 

counts. Williamson timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION 

¶4 “After the close of evidence . . . the court must enter a 

judgment of acquittal on any offense charged . . . if there is no substantial 

evidence to support a conviction.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a)(1). A Rule 20 

motion on the sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed de novo. State v. West, 

226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15 (2011). 

¶5 The sufficiency of evidence presented at trial is reviewed “to 

determine if substantial evidence exists to support the jury verdict.” State v. 

Hausner, 230 Ariz. 60, 75, ¶ 50 (2012). “Evidence is viewed in a light most 
STATE v. WILLIAMSON 

Decision of the Court 

3 

favorable to sustaining the verdict.” West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 15 (quoting 

State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 595 (1993)). Both direct and circumstantial 

evidence is considered. Id. at ¶ 16. But if “reasonable minds may differ on 

inferences drawn from the facts, the case must be submitted to the jury, and 

the trial judge has no discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.” Id. at 563, 

¶ 18 (quoting State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 590, 603 (1997)). 

¶6 “In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, [this Court] 

test[s] the evidence ‘against the statutorily required elements of the 

offense.’” State v. Aguirre, 255 Ariz. 89, 92, ¶ 8 (App. 2023) (quoting State v. 

Pena, 209 Ariz. 503, 505, ¶ 8 (App. 2005)). “[K]nowingly[ p]ossess[ing] or 

us[ing] a dangerous drug” is a class 4 felony. A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(1), (B)(1). 

Using, or possessing with intent to use, drug paraphernalia is a class 6 

felony. A.R.S. § 13-3415(A). Knowingly means “a person is aware or 

believes that the person’s conduct is of that nature or that the circumstance 

exists.” A.R.S. § 13-105(10)(b). Possession means “to exercise dominion or 

control over property” and includes both “actual possession” and 

“constructive possession.” A.R.S. § 13-105(34); State v. Ottar, 232 Ariz. 97, 

99, ¶ 5 (2013). 

¶7 “Constructive possession exists when the prohibited property 

‘is found in a place under [the defendant’s] dominion [or] control and under 

circumstances from which it can be reasonably inferred that the defendant 

had actual knowledge of the existence of the [property].’” State v. Cox, 214 

Ariz. 518, 520-21, ¶ 10 (App. 2007) (quoting State v. Villavicencio, 108 Ariz. 

518, 520 (1972)) (alterations in original). “The terms ‘dominion’ and ‘control’ 

carry their ordinary meaning, such that dominion means ‘absolute 

ownership’ and control means to ‘have power over.’” State v. Ingram, 239 

Ariz. 228, 233, ¶ 21 (App. 2016) (quoting Cox, 214 Ariz. at 520, ¶ 9). 

¶8 The State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s 

verdicts that Williamson possessed both drugs and paraphernalia. The 

evidence showed that Williamson was inside the car where 

methamphetamine and paraphernalia were found. The car was registered 

solely in Williamson’s name. Men’s clothing and other items were scattered 

throughout the car. Based on one officer’s testimony, the car’s general 

appearance indicated Williamson and his wife had been living in the car. 

This evidence was sufficient to show that Williamson exercised dominion 

and control over the car where the drugs and paraphernalia were found. 

Thus, the evidence demonstrated possession. “Reasonable persons could 

accept [this evidence] as adequate and sufficient to support a guilty verdict 

beyond a reasonable doubt.” Hausner, 230 Ariz. at 75, ¶ 50. 
STATE v. WILLIAMSON 

Decision of the Court 

4 

¶9 Williamson argues that it was his wife that possessed the 

drugs and paraphernalia because they were found in the console and under 

debris on the floorboard. He argues that substantial evidence did not 

establish that he possessed the prohibited items. But two people can jointly 

possess property under the theory of constructive possession. Ingram, 239 

Ariz. at 233, ¶ 22 (quoting State v. Gonsalves, 231 Ariz. 521, 523, ¶ 9 (App. 

2013)). Thus, jurors could reasonably conclude that both Williamson and 

his wife jointly possessed the drugs and paraphernalia found in 

Williamson’s car. 

¶10 Similarly, reasonable jurors could infer that Williamson knew 

there were drugs and paraphernalia present. The methamphetamine and 

paraphernalia discovered inside the center console were beside 

Williamson. There was additional paraphernalia in a glasses case on the 

passenger floorboard at Williamson’s feet, where he “would be stepping on 

it.” Accordingly, reasonable jurors could infer that Williamson knew drugs 

and paraphernalia were in the car. 

CONCLUSION 

¶11 Williamson’s convictions for possession or use of dangerous 

drugs and possession or use of drug paraphernalia are supported by 

sufficient evidence. Accordingly, Williamson’s convictions are affirmed.