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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 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

TAUKIHAAMEA TUIONE PULOTU, 

Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0491 

 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR2014-103527-001 

The Honorable M. Scott McCoy, Judge 

AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix 

By Eric Knobloch 

Counsel for Appellee 

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix 

By Kevin D. Heade 

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. PULOTU 

Decision of the Court 

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined. 

O R O Z C O, Judge: 

¶1 Taukihaamea Tuione Pulotu appeals his conviction for one 

count of possession or use of marijuana, a class 1 misdemeanor. For the 

following reasons, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In July 2013, Officer Mary O’Neill of the Chandler Police 

Department arrested Pulotu after a traffic stop in Chandler. Following the 

arrest, officers searched Pulotu and found several personal items, including 

a wallet. Inside the wallet, Officer O’Neill discovered Pulotu’s credit cards, 

some cash and a plastic bag containing a green leafy substance that Pulotu 

confirmed as being marijuana. 

¶3 Pulotu was charged with one count of possession or use of 

marijuana, a class 6 felony. At trial, Officer O’Neill testified that Pulotu 

confirmed during an interview that he knew the marijuana was in his 

wallet. Pulotu told her that he took the marijuana from a youth at his 

church, intending to dispose of it, but he had forgotten to discard it. Pulotu 

testified he did not know what it was and thought the baggie was empty. 

Pulotu further testified that he forgot about the baggie and did not throw it 

away. Pulotu denied ever admitting to an officer that the baggie contained 

marijuana. 

¶4 The trial court did not find Pulotu’s testimony credible and 

found Pulotu guilty of possession of marijuana in an amount less than two 

pounds, a class 1 misdemeanor. The trial court suspended Pulotu’s 

sentence and imposed two years’ probation and a $1,200 fine. Pulotu timely 

appealed and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the 

Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 

12 120.21.A.1, 13-4031 and -4033.A.1 (West 2016).1

 

1 We cite the current version of applicable statutes when no revisions 

material to this decision have since occurred. 
STATE v. PULOTU 

Decision of the Court 

3 

DISCUSSION

¶5 On appeal, Pulotu asserts that the trial court erred because the 

State did not present sufficient evidence proving he knowingly possessed 

marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt. A conviction must be based on 

“substantial evidence.” See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20.a; State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 

64, 67 (1990). Whether evidence is sufficient to sustain a verdict is a 

question of law that we review de novo. See State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, 

¶ 15 (2011). “The question is whether there was sufficient evidence so that 

a rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

State v. Reinhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588 (1997). On appeal, we view the 

evidence in the “light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve 

all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” Id. at 588-89. “We do not 

consider if we would reach the same conclusion as the trier-of-fact, but only 

if there is a complete absence of probative facts to support its conclusion.” 

State v. Carlisle, 198 Ariz. 203, 206 (App. 2000) (internal punctuation and 

citation omitted). 

¶6 Pulotu argues that “there was no substantial evidence that 

[he] knowingly possessed marijuana on or about July 26, 2013.” Under 

A.R.S. § 13-3405.A.1, “[a] person shall not knowingly [p]ossess or use 

marijuana.” “’Knowingly’ means, with respect to conduct or to a 

circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, that 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). “’Possess’ means knowingly to 

have physical possession or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over 

property.” A.R.S. § 13-105.34. 

¶7 Pulotu argues that because he testified he had forgotten about 

the marijuana in his wallet, the only evidence showing he had knowing 

possession of the marijuana illustrated he knowingly possessed it at the 

time he received the baggie at church. And because no evidence established 

that the church was within the jurisdiction of the court, Pulotu asserts that 

there was “no substantial evidence that [he] knowingly possessed the 

baggie while within the jurisdiction of the court.” Instead, Pulotu argues 

“[a]ll of the evidence at trial supported [his] claim that he had forgotten 

about the baggie being in his wallet by the time of his arrest in Chandler.” 

We disagree. 

¶8 Sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s verdict. Officer 

O’Neill testified that she found the marijuana in Pulotu’s possession in a 

wallet with his credit cards and that during an interview, Pulotu 

acknowledged his possession of the marijuana. Even though Pulotu 
STATE v. PULOTU 

Decision of the Court 

4 

testified that he forgot about the marijuana in his wallet, the trial court did 

not find his testimony credible. See State v. Pieck, 111 Ariz. 318, 320 (1974) 

(acknowledging that the fact-finder “is not compelled to accept the story or 

believe the testimony of an interested party”). 

¶9 We also disagree with Pulotu’s argument that insufficient 

evidence established the location of the church—where Pulotu acquired the 

marijuana—within the jurisdiction of the Chandler police. The statute 

proscribes the knowing possession of marijuana irrespective of where a 

person takes control of the contraband. See A.R.S. § 13-3405.A. Therefore, 

it is only relevant that Pulotu possessed the marijuana at the time of his 

arrest in Chandler. Because we resolve all reasonable inferences against 

Pulotu, see Reinhardt, 190 Ariz. at 588-89, there was sufficient evidence that 

he knowingly possessed the marijuana at the time of his arrest. 

CONCLUSION 

¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s verdict.