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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SCOTT ALAN MORRISON, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0012 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR201900722 

The Honorable John David Napper, Judge

REVERSED AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Jana Zinman 

Counsel for Appellee 

Oliverson & Huss Law, PLLC, Tempe

By Jeremy Huss

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 1-18-2022
STATE v. MORRISON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding 

Judge D. Steven Williams joined and to which Judge James B. Morse Jr. 

dissented.

G A S S, Judge:

¶1 Scott Alan Morrison appeals his convictions and sentences for 

possession or use of narcotic drugs (Count 2) and related drug 

paraphernalia (Count 4). He does not appeal the two convictions related to 

dangerous drugs (Counts 1 and 3). Because insufficient evidence supports 

the verdicts on Counts 2 and 4, we reverse those convictions and remand to 

the superior court for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Detectives in the Partners Against Narcotics Trafficking 

(PANT) task force began investigating Morrison after he took a box of 

prescription drugs from another suspect who PANT had under 

investigation. Two weeks later, PANT detectives had an informant conduct

a controlled methamphetamine buy from Morrison. When the informant 

did not come out of Morrison’s trailer, officers knocked on the door and 

asked Morrison to come outside. Officers then arrested Morrison and 

obtained a search warrant. The police found methamphetamine in a 

hallway closet, methamphetamine paraphernalia in a bedroom, marijuana 

and related paraphernalia in the living room, and one syringe filled with a 

liquid on Morrison’s bedroom nightstand.

¶3 At trial, the lead detective said he had twenty years’ 

experience with the PANT task force and had worked more than a hundred 

drug cases. He described how heroin generally looks and smells and its 

typical consistency. He also said when heroin is in a syringe, it is typically 

a black liquid. The detective said he believed the syringe he found on the 

nightstand was heroin. The parties stipulated—without further 

foundation—to the admission of a photograph of a syringe filled with 

liquid. The State did not admit evidence of any lab analysis of the liquid.

¶4 The jury convicted Morrison of possession of dangerous 

drugs (Count 1), possession of narcotic drugs (Count 2), and two counts of 
STATE v. MORRISON

Decision of the Court

3

possession of drug paraphernalia (Count 3 for methamphetamine and 

Count 4 for heroin). The superior court suspended Morrison’s sentence and 

placed him on concurrent supervised probation terms of four years for each 

drug possession charge and three years for each paraphernalia charge. 

Morrison timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction under article VI, 

section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 13-4031 and 13-

4033.A.1.

ANALYSIS

¶5 Morrison contends insufficient evidence supported his 

convictions for possession of narcotic drugs and narcotic-drug 

paraphernalia. This court reviews de novo claims of insufficient evidence. 

State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15 (2011). In reviewing the sufficiency of 

the evidence, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to 

sustaining the verdict and resolves all reasonable inferences against the 

defendant. State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588–89 (1997). But this court will 

reverse a conviction if no substantial evidence supports it. State v. Morgan, 

248 Ariz. 322, 325, ¶ 7 (App. 2020); see also State v. Clark, 249 Ariz. 528, 533, 

¶ 16 (App. 2020) (“a conviction based on insufficient evidence is 

fundamental, prejudicial error”). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere 

scintilla and is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate 

and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67 (1990) (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted).

¶6 As charged here, possession of a narcotic drug requires proof:

(1) the defendant knowingly possessed heroin; and (2) the substance was 

heroin. A.R.S. § 13-3408. Possession of drug paraphernalia requires proof:

(1) the defendant possessed a syringe with the intent to introduce a narcotic 

drug into the body; and (2) the syringe was drug paraphernalia. A.R.S. § 13-

3415.

¶7 Morrison argues the evidence was insufficient to prove the 

syringe contained heroin. We agree because the only evidence connecting 

Morrison to possession of heroin was: (1) the lead detective’s general 

background in drug training and arrests; (2) his statement heroin is 

commonly a black liquid and can be injected; (3) a photograph of a black 

liquid in a syringe; and (4) the lead detective’s uncorroborated belief the 

liquid in the syringe found on Morrison’s nightstand was heroin.

¶8 No doubt, circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to 

support a conviction for drug possession. See, e.g., State v. Junkin, 123 Ariz. 
STATE v. MORRISON

Decision of the Court

4

288, 291 (App. 1979). But it does not follow that the existence of any 

circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. See Mathers, 165 

Ariz. at 69–71; cf. State v. Terrell, 156 Ariz. 499, 503 (App. 1988) (stating an 

unusual name, physical presence within Maricopa or Pinal County, and a 

similar description to the previously convicted party is insufficient to prove 

identity and establish a prior conviction).

¶9 The State could have established sufficient evidence in several 

ways, the most preferred being a chemical analysis. See Wozniak v. Galati, 

200 Ariz. 550, 554, ¶¶ 13, 15 (App. 2001); but see State v. Nightwine, 137 Ariz. 

499, 503 (App. 1983) (if the State presents sufficient circumstantial evidence, 

chemical analysis is not required for a drug conviction). Here, it did not. 

Instead, the State relied on insufficient, speculative testimony. The lead 

detective never explained his reasons for believing the syringe contained 

heroin. In fact, he did not describe the liquid or the syringe at all. Though 

he said heroin generally has a strong vinegar smell, he did not discuss the 

odor of the liquid in the syringe or even say he smelled it.

¶10 The missing testimony linking the syringe to the lead 

detective’s testimony would shift our analysis. See State v. Jonas, 162 Ariz. 

32, 34 (App. 1988) (witness said the smoked marijuana cigarette had a 

different odor than a tobacco cigarette); State v. Ampey, 125 Ariz. 281, 282 

(App. 1980) (officer had training in odor of freshly burnt marijuana and 

smelled same odor on defendant). The same would be true if the PANT 

informant met Morrison under the cover of buying heroin instead of 

methamphetamine. See Nightwine, 137 Ariz. at 503 (sufficient evidence

when “cocaine was the narcotic to be furnished, co-conspirator . . . paid 

$2,300 an ounce for it, the purchaser . . . complained of its quality but not 

whether it was or was not cocaine, and he used it”).

¶11 No other circumstantial evidence supports the verdict. For 

example, no witness used the substance in the syringe or said its effects felt 

like heroin. Cf. State v. Saez, 173 Ariz. 624, 630 (App. 1992) (witness 

testimony the substance appeared to be cocaine “confirmed by the narcotic 

effect produced by the substance” as well as the price and packaging of the 

cocaine). And Morrison made no admissions about the substance. See 

Ampey, 125 Ariz. at 282 (officer’s identification of the appearance and smell 

of marijuana confirmed by defendant’s admissions); Jonas, 162 Ariz. at 34 

(“An admission by the defendant that a substance is a drug is, absent 

contrary evidence, sufficient evidence of the nature of the substance to 

support a conviction.”).
STATE v. MORRISON

Decision of the Court

5

¶12 At bottom, the only evidence supporting Morrison’s narcoticdrug conviction is a description of what heroin can sometimes look like, a 

photograph of a black liquid in a syringe, and the lead detective’s bare 

assertion he thought it was heroin. Though the State introduced a 

photograph for the jurors’ consideration, the parties stipulated to the 

photograph’s admission, and the State provided no foundation to put it in 

context.

¶13 In short, mere speculation, not actual proof, about the 

substance in the syringe underlies Morrison’s narcotic-drug conviction. See 

Mathers, 165 Ariz. at 71. And “[s]peculation concerning possibilities is an 

insufficient basis to sustain” Morrison’s conviction. See id.

¶14 As with drug possession, circumstantial evidence may

support a conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia. See State v. Gill, 

248 Ariz. 274, 278, ¶¶ 9–10 (App. 2020) (evidence sufficient to uphold 

conviction absent any DNA evidence or fingerprints on paraphernalia). 

Here, however, insufficient evidence supported Morrison’s using the 

syringe to hold heroin, let alone for the purpose of injecting heroin. Seesupra

¶¶ 9–13. Insufficient evidence, therefore, also supported Morrison’s 

conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia.

CONCLUSION

¶15 We reverse Morrison’s convictions on Counts 2 and 4 and 

remand to the superior court for further proceedings consistent with this 

decision.
STATE v. MORRISON

Morse, J., dissenting

6

M O R S E, Judge, dissenting:

¶16 For appellate courts, the standard of review is often 

determinative. This is especially true when we review a jury's verdict. I 

respectfully dissent because this deferential standard of review requires me 

to conclude sufficient evidence supports Morrison's convictions.

¶17 While we review claims of insufficient evidence de novo, State 

v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15 (2011), we must view the evidence in the 

light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and determine whether "any 

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt," State v. Cox, 217 Ariz. 353, 357, ¶ 22 (2007); see 

also State v. Fischer, 242 Ariz. 44, 52, ¶ 28 (2017) ("The appellate court does 

not sit as the 'fourteenth' juror. The appellate court's role is not to weigh 

the evidence." (citation omitted)). Morrison also concedes that our review 

is for fundamental error, requiring him to show fundamental error and 

resulting prejudice. See State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135, 141, ¶¶ 18-21 (2018). 

¶18 At trial, the lead detective stated he had twenty years' 

experience in law enforcement and worked on "easily over a hundred" drug 

cases. Without any objection, the detective explained how heroin and 

methamphetamine look different when in a syringe, noting 

methamphetamine is "almost a clear liquid" while heroin looks "like a black 

liquid" and usually has blood in it if used. He testified that law enforcement 

officers found a syringe next to Morrison's wallet and identified the 

substance in the syringe as heroin, testifying the syringe "had a liquid 

substance inside that, based on my training and experience, appeared to be 

heroin." Finally, the State provided the jury with a photograph of the 

loaded syringe from which it could make its own comparison to the 

detective's description. And while referencing the syringe in the 

photograph, the detective stated it was "loaded with what I believe to be 

heroin."1 Although the far-better practice would have been to introduce 

results of a chemical analysis, the State presented sufficient evidence that 

the syringe contained heroin. 

¶19 Admittedly, the detective's testimony did not completely 

close the circle. As Morrison asserts, the state did not introduce lab results 

and the detective mentioned that heroin generally smells of vinegar but did 

not discuss any odor of the liquid in the syringe. But Morrison's defense 

1 Notably, Morrison did not object to the detective's opinion testimony 

at trial and, on appeal, does not raise any challenge to the admission of that 

testimony. See State v. McCall, 139 Ariz. 147, 164 (1983) (finding issues 

waived if not raised in the opening brief). 
STATE v. MORRISON

Morse, J., dissenting

7

was based on whether he possessed the syringe, not the syringe's contents. 

While the asserted defense does not relieve the prosecution of the burden 

to prove all elements of its case, it is a factor in determining whether 

fundamental error has occurred. See State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 467, ¶ 

193 (2004) ("Because of the defenses asserted and the facts placed before the 

jury in this case, we do not find the error fundamental."). 

¶20 More evidence was not required to convict Morrison. See 

State v. Jonas, 162 Ariz. 32, 34 (App. 1988) ("That a substance is an illicit drug 

can be proved by circumstantial evidence."). A conviction requires 

substantial evidence, not perfect evidence. See State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 

67 (1990) (noting a conviction must be supported by substantial evidence of 

guilt, where "[s]ubstantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla"). Here, 

the detective explained what he looks for when identifying heroin and then 

offered his opinion that the substance in the syringe was heroin. The State 

also provided the jury with a photograph of the loaded syringe so it could 

compare it to the detective's description. Accordingly, giving proper 

deference to the jury, the State's evidence amounted to more than a mere 

scintilla and was sufficient to support Morrison's conviction.

¶21 For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm.