1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39491

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

ALEX LEE PETTIT

,

Defendant-Appellant

. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 430

Filed: April 4, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin

Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction for possession of controlled substance with intent to

deliver, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; John C. McKinney, Deputy
Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ GRATTON, Judge

Alex Lee Pettit appeals from his judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled

substance with the intent to deliver

, Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(a)(1)(B). He claims that the district

court erred by requiring him to provide irrelevant testimony regarding the identity of the person

from whom he purch ased marijuana.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND

In July 2010, detectives from the Twin Falls Sheriff’s Department obtained a search

warrant for Pettit’s residence. Once inside the residence, the deputies found marijuana, cash,

packaging supplies, a scale, and firearms. Pettit was arrested and charged with one count of

possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, in violation of I.C. § 37

-

2732(a)(1)(B)

.2 At trial, Pettit ad mitted possessing the marijuana but denied that he possessed it with the

intent to deliver. On cross

- examination

, Pettit was asked by the prosecutor about where he had

obtained the marijuana and the following interaction occurred:

[PROSECUTOR] : And the marijuana in the safe, you said that was yours?

[PETTIT] : Yes, ma ’ am. [PROSECUTOR]: Where did you get that?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. Irrelevant.

[ THE COURT ]: Overruled.

[PETTIT]: Just from marijuana dealers.

[PROSECUTOR]: Who?

[PETTIT]: I mean, do I have to say a name?

[ THE COURT ] : Yes, you do.

[PETTIT]: I mean, the re was a number of

-- there was

-- I don ’ t

see how this is relevant at all to how I

-- a name of
my dealer is relevant to my case. I don ’ t

understand.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Once again, Your Honor, I ’ d renew my objection as
to relevancy.

[ THE COURT ] : Overruled.

[PROSECUTOR]: Who did you buy the marijuana from that was in the

safe?

[PETTIT]: It was an older fellow named Joe.

[PROSECUTOR]: What ’ s his last name?

[PETTIT]: I don ’ t recall.

[PROSECUTOR]: Where does he live?

[PETTIT]: In Twin.

[PROSECUTOR]: Where?

[PETTIT]: I don ’ t know now.

[PROSECUTOR]: Where was he living back in June of 2010?

[PETTIT]: Back on a president street.

[PROSECUTOR]: What street?

[PETTIT]: Monroe.

[PROSECUTOR]: What house number?

[PETTIT]: I don ’ t recall the house number.

[PROSECUTOR]: Do you recall the block?

[PETTIT]: Third block. The 300 block.

[PROSECUTOR]: Who did he live there with?

[PETTIT]: Just by himself is all, as far as I know.

[PROSECUTO R]: You don ’ t know his last name?

[PETTIT]: No. It started with a “ B .”

[PROSECUTOR]: His name is Joe?

[PETTIT]: Yes.3 Pettit was found guilty. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years with three

years determinate, and the court retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained

jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentence and placed Pe ttit on probation. Pettit

timely appealed.

II.

ANALYSIS

Pettit claims that the identity of the person from whom he purchased marijuana was

irrelevant and that the district court erred by requiring him to answer the prosecutor’s questions.

Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of

consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be

without the evidence.” Idaho Rule of Evidence 401 ; State v. Byington

, 132 Idaho 597, 603, 977

P.2d 211, 217 (Ct. App. 1998). Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible. I.R.E. 402.

Whether evidence is relevant is an issue of law which this Court reviews de novo. State v.

Lamphere , 130 Idaho 630, 632, 945 P.2d 1, 3 ( 1997); State v. Sanchez , 147 Idaho 521, 211 P.3d

130 ( Ct. App. 2009).

We need not decide whether the testimony sought was irrelevant

. Even if the district

court ’ s ruling regarding the supplier’s identity was in error, I.R.E. 103 provides that “Error may

n ot be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of

the party is affected

. ” Trial error will be deemed harmless if the reviewing court is convinced

,
beyond a reasonable doubt

, that the error did not contribute to the verdict. State v. Perry , 150

Idaho 209, 227, 245 P.3d 961, 979 (2010). In reviewing for harmless error, the court evaluates

the potential prejudice from the inadmissible evidence in the context of the evidence presented at

trial. State v. Yager , 139 Idaho 680, 687, 85 P.3d 656, 663 (2004) (error in failing to suppress

evidence was harmless because probative value of evidence improperly admitted at trial was de

minimis in light of other evidence properly presented to establish defendant ’ s guilt).

The evidence establishing Pettit’s guilt of possession of a controlled substance with the

intent to deliver was extensive

. The detective seized several large “heat sealable” bags

, which

the detective later testified are typically used in sales of bulk am ounts of marijuana. The

detective also found in Pettit’s bedroom a safe, which contained: (1) a set of electronic scales;

(2) a black case containing one thousand dollars and a miniature suitcase also containing a

thousand dollars; (3) a heat sealable ba g; (4) a Tupperware

- style container with two black plastic4 bags containing a total of just over twelve grams of marijuana ; (5) Ziplock baggies; (6) one

plastic bag containing 15.83 grams of marijuana, a large FoodSaver bag that had the odor of

marijuana in side; and (7) two handguns and seven rifles. A detective testified that it is common

for drug dealers to keep money and firearms in close proximity to where illicit drugs are stored

for safekeeping and protection. Last, and arguably most important, the d etective testified that

Pettit, after he waived his Miranda rights, 1 admitted to selling marijuana in order to supplement

his income

.

Pettit also testified at trial that he admitted to possessing the marijuana, but denied that

he possessed it with the i ntent to deliver. Pettit also testified that some of the sealable bags were

used to package marijuana, but were also used for storing meat because Pettit was an avid hunter.

Lastly, Pettit testified that three of the firearms were his father ’ s, as well a s half of the money,

and that the other guns were used for hunting.

We are convinced , beyond a reasonable doubt, from our review of the record that any

error in admission of the evidence did not contribute to the verdict. Thus, any error was

harmless be yond a reasonable doubt

. Perry , 150 Idaho at 227, 245 P.3d at 979

.

III.

CONCLUSION

Even if the district court erred in admitting testimony regarding who Pettit purchased

marijuana from , the evidence was de minimis and harmless in light of the other admissible

evidence showing Pettit’s guilt. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Judge LANSING and Judge MELANSON CONCUR.

1 See Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966).