1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40315

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DERICK BRUCE DEGNAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 671

Filed: September 20, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonneville County. Hon. Joel E. Tingey, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance, affirmed. 

Greg S. Silvey, Star, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Daphne J. Huang, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

MELANSON, Judge

Officers responded to a report that a wanted subject was staying in a motel room in Idaho 

Falls. Officers knocked on the door to the room and Derick Bruce Degnan responded. Degnan 

informed the officers that the woman they were searching for was not in the room. However, 

officers observed a woman climbing out of a window in the motel’s bathroom. While officers 

apprehended the woman, Degnan left the scene in his vehicle. An officer later located Degnan’s 

vehicle outside of a storage shop. The officer detained Degnan and began to question him 

regarding the incident at the motel and why he left the scene. During this time, other officers 

arrived, including a canine handler and his narcotics dog. While performing a search of the 

exterior of Degnan’s vehicle, the narcotics dog indicated the presence of drugs. The handler 

opened the vehicle door and the dog began to search the interior compartment. The dog sat on 

the center console and alerted to both the center console and the ashtray. The dog pawed at the 

ashtray and it opened.
2

Officers then searched the vehicle. Inside, an officer smelled the odor of marijuana. In

the ashtray, officers discovered what appeared to be marijuana flakes. Behind the ashtray, 

officers observed a plastic baggie. The baggie contained a white, crystal-like substance. An 

officer also observed pieces of cut cigarette filters, items later testified to as being used when 

injecting methamphetamine. Additionally, the officers located a pipe used for smoking drugs 

and the empty cylinder of a pen with a white powdery substance in it. A forensic examiner later 

tested the white crystal-like substance in the baggie and confirmed it was methamphetamine.

The state charged Degnan with felony possession of a controlled substance

(methamphetamine). I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). Degnan proceeded to jury trial and was thereafter 

found guilty. This appeal follows.1

Degnan argues the state presented insufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s finding of 

guilt for possession of methamphetamine. Specifically, Degnan argues that the 

methamphetamine was more likely to be that of the previous owner of the vehicle--the woman 

seen leaving the motel room.

Appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited in scope. A finding of guilt 

will not be overturned on appeal where there is substantial evidence upon which a reasonable 

trier of fact could have found that the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the essential 

elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Herrera-Brito, 131 Idaho 383, 385, 957 

P.2d 1099, 1101 (Ct. App. 1998); State v. Knutson, 121 Idaho 101, 104, 822 P.2d 998, 1001 (Ct. 

App. 1991). We will not substitute our view for that of the trier of fact as to the credibility of the 

witnesses, the weight to be given to the testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn 

from the evidence. Knutson, 121 Idaho at 104, 822 P.2d at 1001; State v. Decker, 108 Idaho 683, 

684, 701 P.2d 303, 304 (Ct. App. 1985). Moreover, we will consider the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the prosecution. Herrera-Brito, 131 Idaho at 385, 957 P.2d at 1101; Knutson, 

121 Idaho at 104, 822 P.2d at 1001.

The jury was instructed that, to find Degnan guilty of possession of methamphetamine, 

the state must prove that Degnan possessed methamphetamine and he knew it was 

 

1 The case was consolidated with a misdemeanor case arising out of the same incident in 

which Degnan was charged with possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and 

unlawful transportation of alcoholic beverages. While Degnan was found guilty of possession of 

drug paraphernalia and unlawful transportation of alcoholic beverages charges, he does not 

challenge those convictions on appeal.
3

methamphetamine. The jury was instructed that a person has possession of something if he or 

she knows of its presence and has physical control of it or the power and intention to control it. 

The jury was also instructed that more than one person can be in possession of something if each 

knows of its presence and has the power and intention to use it. Degnan does not assert on 

appeal that these instructions were erroneous.

At trial, the state presented evidence that Degnan lied about the presence of the wanted 

person in the hotel room and then fled the scene in his vehicle. Then, when officers approached 

Degnan’s vehicle to search it, he became visibly nervous. According to one of the officers, 

Degnan’s “legs started shaking, his foot was tapping up and down, and he was fidgeting in the 

back” of the officer’s vehicle. The state presented evidence that a narcotics dog detected the 

presence of illegal drugs in Degnan’s vehicle, specifically in the center console and ashtray. 

When officers searched inside the vehicle, they found a baggie with a white, crystal-like 

substance and drug paraphernalia. An officer testified that, although the area around the baggie 

was covered in dust, the baggie itself was not dusty. The state called a forensic scientist from the 

state laboratory who testified that she conducted tests on the substance found in the baggie and 

determined that the substance was methamphetamine. The officer also testified that she 

discovered pieces of cut cigarette filters. The officer explained that these items are used as a 

filter when injecting methamphetamine. In addition, the state entered into evidence an empty

cylinder to a pen with a white, powdery substance in it which was found in Degnan’s vehicle. 

The officer testified that methamphetamine, aside from being injected, can also be smoked or 

snorted through such a cylinder.

While Degnan argues that evidence adduced at trial also supported the theory that the 

methamphetamine belonged to another user of the vehicle or the previous owner, this alone is not 

enough to demonstrate that the evidence was insufficient. See State v. Severson, 147 Idaho 694, 

712, 215 P.3d 414, 432 (2009) (even when circumstantial evidence could be interpreted 

consistently with a finding of innocence, it will be sufficient to uphold a guilty verdict when it 

also gives rise to reasonable inferences of guilt). Based on the evidence adduced at trial, a 

reasonable trier of fact could have found that the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the 

essential elements of possession of methamphetamine. Thus, Degnan’s claim that there was 

insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of guilt fails. Accordingly, Degnan’s

judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance is affirmed.

Chief Judge GUTIERREZ and Judge LANSING, CONCUR.