No. 90-592 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1991 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

WILLIAM ROBERT BERNHARDT, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

JUN 11 1991 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Missoula, 

The Honorable Douglas G. Harkin, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

William Dee Morris, Helena, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Honorable Marc Racicot, Attorney General, 

Barbara C. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, 

Helena, Montana; Robert L. Deschamps 111, 

Missoula County Attorney, Missoula, Montana 

Submitted on ~riefs: March 21, 1991 

Decided: June 11, 1991 

Filed: 

Clerk 
Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., delivered the opinion of the Court. 

The defendant William Robert Bernhardt was found guilty of 

criminal possession of dangerous drugs by a jury sitting in the 

Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County. He appeals from that 

verdict. 

We affirm. 

The sole question presented for review is whether substantial 

evidence was introduced at trial upon which to convict the 

defendant of criminal possession of methamphetamine. 

On or about March 13, 1989, the defendant was arrested in 

downtown Missoula for domestic abuse. During the pat-down to check 

for weapons, the arresting officer felt a round container in the 

defendant's clothing, which he assumed to be a tobacco container. 

The defendant was then handcuffed and placed in the back of the 

squad car. 

The officer testified that on the ride to the station the 

defendant was moving around in the back seat quite a bit, rocking 

back and forth. After they reached the jail parking lot, the 

officer heard a noise that sounded to him like a hard container 

dropping onto some metal. 

The officer took the defendant to jail, where paraphernalia 

customarily used to take drugs was found in his pocket. The 

arresting officer returned to the patrol car and checked the back 

seat area. Under the cushion of the back seat, he found a 
small green plastic container and two "bindles.I1 ~esidue in the 

container later tested positive for cocaine and the material in the 

bindles tested positive for methamphetamine. 

The defendant was convicted by a jury of criminal possession 

of methamphetamine, and the court sentenced him to five years in 

the Montana State Prison, all of which were suspended. 

The issue is whether substantial evidence was presented at 

trial to convict the defendant of possession of methamphetamine. 

The arresting officer testified that it was during the pat 

down search that he initially felt the object which seemed like a 

chewing tobacco can that later proved to be a cocaine container. 

The defendant maintains that that evidence could support a charge 

of possession of cocaine, since that was what was found in the 

container, but not possession of methamphetamine. He states that 

the evidence does nothing to directly connect the defendant with 

the two bindles of methamphetamine found in the vicinity of the 

plastic container. The defendant reasons that the jury verdict 

must have been "based on inferences only, a use of circumstantial 

evidence forbidden by law." 

The evidence supporting the defendant's conviction for 

possession of methamphetamine is sufficient to support the 

verdict. "Our standard of review on issues of substantial evidence 

is that a conviction cannot be overturned if the evidence, when 

viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, would allow 

a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the 
crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Tome, 228 Mont. 398, 

400, 742 P.2d 479, 481 (1987), citing State v. Kutnyak, 211 Mont. 

155, 174, 685 P.2d 901, 910 (1984). "When circumstantial evidence 

is susceptible to two interpretations, one which supports guilt and 

the other which supports innocence, the trier of fact determines 

which is the most reasonable." State v. Tome, 228 Mont. at 401, 

742 P.2d at 481. 

We have defined "substantialt1 as "such relevant evidence as 

a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

concl~sion.~~ State v. Kutnvak, 211 Mont. at 174, 685 P.2d at 910. 

~lPossessionw is the element of the crime in question here. 

 possession^ is defined as the knowing control of anything for a 

sufficient time to be able to terminate control. Section 

45-2-101(52), MCA. The testimony of the officer established the 

defendant's presence and position in the car, his motions, and the 

sound of an item hitting against metal in the back seat while the 

defendant was sitting there. The officer testified that the round 

container matched the size and shape of the container earlier felt 

in the defendant's pocket and that the bindles of methamphetamine 

were with the container when found. The officer also testified 

that the police vehicle was locked when he and the defendant were 

away from it and that he recalled no one else who could have 

deposited the items. 
The foregoing evidence of possession of the bindles of 

methamphetamine is substantial enough to support the trier of 

fact's verdict of guilty. 

~fkirmed. 

we Concur: