# FILED September 30, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE JULY SESSION, 1998
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) No. 01C01-9707-CC-00444 Appellee ) ) DICKSON COUNTY vs. ) ) Hon. Robert Burch, Judge DEMARIO HILL, ) ) (Possession of Cocaine in Appellant ) excess of .5 grams with intent to sell and possession of drug paraphernalia) For the Appellant : For the Appellee : Clifford K. McGown , Jr. John Knox Walkup 113 North Court Square Attorney General and Reporter P. O. Box 26 Waverly, TN 37185 Janis L. Turner Assistant Attorney General (ON APPEAL ONLY) Criminal Justice D ivision 425 Fifth Avenue North Shipp R. Weems 2d Floor, Cordell Hul l Building District Public Def

ender Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Carey Thompson Asst. District Publi c Defender P. O. Box 160 Charlotte, TN 37036-0160 Dan Mitchum Alsobro oks District Attorney Gener al (AT TRIAL AND OF COU NSEL ON APPEAL) Robert Wilson Asst. District Attor

ney General P. O. Box 580 Charlotte, TN 37036

OPINION FILED: AFFIRMED David G. Hayes Judge1 The indictment also cha rges the appellant und

er the alias, David We

athers. 2 A D ickso n Co unty Gra nd Jury r eturn ed a thre e-co unt in dictm ent a gain st the app ellan t and a co -defe nda nt, Rosalind Thompson, chargi ng them with one count of posses sion of cocai ne over .5 grams with i ntent to sel l, one count of po sses sion of m arijua na, a nd o ne c oun t pos sess ion o f dru g pa raph erna lia. 2 OPINION Th e a pp ella nt, D em ario Hill 1 , app eals as o f right from con viction s en tered by th e C ircuit C ourt of Dickson County for possessi on of cocaine i n excess of .5 grams with int ent to sel l, a Class B felony, and possession of drug paraphernal ia, a Class A m isdemeanor

2 . At t he sentencing heari ng as a R an ge I sta nd ard offe nd er, th e tria l co urt im po se d a fine of $ 2,0 00 an d a ten (10 ) ye ar s en ten ce in th e D ep artm en t of C orr ec tion s fo r felo ny po ss es sio n w ith in ten t to s ell. T his se nte nc e w as ord ere d to be se rve d c on curre ntly w ith a n e lev en (11 ) m on ths an d tw en ty-n ine (29 ) da ys se nte nc e in the co un ty w ork ho us e fo r po ss es sio n o f dru g p ara ph ern alia . Th e a pp ella nt n ow rais es tw o is su es for o ur r ev iew . First , the appel lant cont ends the tri al court erred by permitt ing the Stat e to int roduce evidence of m ariju an a re sid ue se ize d d urin g a pro pe r se arc h o f the res ide nc e. S ec on d, th e a pp ella nt c ha llen ge s the su fficie nc y o f the ev ide nc e to su sta in a co nv ictio n fo r po ss es sio n o f co ca ine w ith in ten t for res ale an d p os se ss ion of d rug pa rap he rna lia. F ollo w ing a r ev iew of th e re co rd, w e a ffirm the tria l co urt ’s decisi on on both issues.

I. Factual Background
In M ay of 1 99 6, a na rco tics de tec tive w ith th e D ick so n C ou nty Sh erif f’s O ffice m ain tain ed surve illan ce of R os alin d T ho m ps on ’s re sid en ce loc ate d a t 10 20 Ev an s R oa d in Bu rns , D ick so n C ou nty . Su rve illan ce pe rsis ted for fo ur to six w ee ks ap pro xim ate ly fo ur d ay s e ac h w ee k. T he de tec tive no ted se ve ral v eh icle s in fron t of
the house that would st ay for short periods of t ime. On Thursday and Friday night s, he witnessed ne arly tw en ty (2 0) v eh icle s a t the res ide nc e.3 Af ter pro cu ring a v alid se arc h w arr an t for the sta ted ad dre ss , the ap pe llan t an d R os alin d Th om ps on w ere fou nd ins ide the res ide nc e a nd tw o o the r m ale s o uts ide . T he ap pe llan t w as fou nd in the be dro om w hic h c on ne cts to th e b ath roo m w itho ut h is s hirt a nd sh oe s p rep arin g to tak e a sh ow er. Upon intervi ewing the appell ant, he t old the of fi cers he li ved at Rosalind Thompson’s house; and she testified a t his trial tha

t she wa s “se eing ” the a ppe llant, he wa s “sta ying there off an d on ,” and he h ad spe nt the nigh t on o ther o cca sion s. Insid e the bath room in clos e pro xim ity to the app ellant, o fficers found a plast ic bag contai ning crack cocaine, a small ti nfoil packet contai ning a small amount of crack cocaine, and a homem

ade crack pi pe with cocai ne resi due.
Th e tw o m ale s o uts ide the res ide nc e in the dri ve w ay w ere Ed rick W ea the rs, the ap pe llan t’s bro the r, a nd “A nth on y” D w ay ne Au lsto n. O ne w as sittin g in sid e a ve hic le a nd the oth er w as sta nd ing ou tsid e. T ho m ps on tes tified w hile sh e w as at w ork , the tw o y ou ng m en an d th e a pp ella nt r em ain ed at he r ho us e. T he offic er te stifie d h e re m ov ed a c ello ph an e p ac ke t co nta inin g c rac k c oc ain e a lon g w ith two packets of one-i nch plasti c bags from the washroom located i n the carport . The samples of co ca ine tes ted fro m the res ide nc e w eig he d 2 .2 g ram s a nd 3.8 gra m s. T hre e “r oa ch es ” w ere fou nd in the din ing roo m in th e a sh tray w hic h th e o ffice r tes tified “ap pe are d” to be m ariju an a. E lse w he re in the res ide nc e, th e o ffice r fou nd rollin g p ap ers . At the conclusi on of the st ate’s case- in-chi ef, t he appellant ’s counsel moved for j udgme nts of ac qu ittal o n a ll thre e c ou nts . Th e tria l co urt g ran ted the m otio n w ith re ga rds to c ou nt tw o o f the ind ictm en t, po ss es sio n o f m ariju an a, b ec au se the field

tes t faile d to pro du ce po sitiv e re su lts; h ow ev er, th e m otio n w as de nie d a s to the oth er tw o c ou nts . W itho ut p res en ting an y p roo f, the ap pe llan t res ted . Th e ju ry fo un d th e a pp ella nt g uilty of b oth rem ain ing co un ts.

I. Introduction o f Evidence4 First , the appel lant cont ends the tri al court erred by permitt ing the Stat e to int roduce evidence of marij uana residue or “r oaches” found insi de the residence. Init ial ly, the State pr oceeded to present evidence of t he possession of marij uana charge through test imony of the off icer. Appellant’ s counsel ob jec ted to th e o ffice r’s te stim on y o n th e g rou nd tha t the offic er w as no t qu alifie d to de term ine w he the r the it ems identif ied as “roaches” di d in fact contain a Schedule VI contr oll ed substance.
Th e office r testified h e ha d se ven teen yea rs of law enfo rcem ent e xpe rienc e inc luding six ye ars on Vic e S qu ad , train ing at IP TM Sc ho ol, d rug ide ntific atio n s ch oo l, an d n arc otic s in ve stig atio n s ch oo ls. M ore ov er, he ha d a rre ste d m ore tha n fiv e h un dre d p eo ple in D ick so n C ou nty for na rco tics vio latio ns ran gin g fro m m ariju an a ro ac he s, c rac k c oc ain e, a nd LS D. At thi s point, appellant ’s counsel r eit erated hi s objecti on stati ng, “He can say what it l ooks like, bu t he ca n’t s ay w ha t it is. H e d idn ’t pe rfor m an y fie ld te st o n it.” A pp ella nt’s co un se l faile d to ob jec t to rele va nc y o f the ev ide nc e, fa iled to m ak e a req ue st fo r a ju ry-o ut h ea ring , faile d to as k fo r a m otio n to strik e, o r re qu es t a c ura tive ins truc tion. C on se qu en tly, th e tria l jud ge lim ited the tes tim on y to w ha t the “roaches” appeared to be. In fact , the of fi cer test if ied that he did perfor m a field t est on the roaches w hic h y ield ed a n eg ativ e re su lt. H e c on clu de d th e te st fa iled be ca us e o f the ag e o f the m ariju an a o r the THC (tetrahydrocannabinol ) level was low . O n c ros s-e xa m ina tion, the offic er s tate d th ere w as a p os sib ility it w as no t m ariju an a. T he m ariju an a w as no t se nt to the TB I crim e la b fo r fur the r tes ting . Th e a pp ella nt a ve rs t he tria l co urt sh ou ld h av e g ive n a cu rat ive ins tru ctio n o nc e th e p rob lem ha d fu lly d ev elo pe d. If th e tria l co urt d oe s n ot g ive su ch an ins truc tion, the ap pe llan t m us t req ue st a curativ e in stru ctio n. State v. Mackey

, 63 8 S .W .2d 83 0, 8 35 -36 (T en n. C rim . Ap p.), perm. to appeal denied , (T en n. 1 98 2). T he failu re to req ue st th e c ura tive ins truc tion co ns titute s a w aiv er o f the iss ue . Mackey , 63 8 S .W .2d at 8 35 -36 ; see also State

v. Tiz ard, 897 S.W.2d 732, 747 ( Tenn. Crim. App. 19 94 ); State v. Jones , 73

3 S .W .2d 51 7, 5 22 (T en n. C rim . Ap p.), perm. to appeal denied , (T en n. 1 98 7). Here, appell ant’s counsel did not r equest a curati ve instr ucti on after the int roducti on of the evi dence,5

the refo re, th e is su e w as w aiv ed . N ev ert he les s, w he n th e tr ial ju dg e g ran ted a ju dg m en t of a cq uitta l for co un t tw o, p os se ss ion of m ariju an a, h e, in fac t, did ins truc t the jury tha t the y w ere no t to c on sid er th e p os se ss ion of m ariju an a sin ce the field tes t w as ne ga tive pro du cin g re as on ab le d ou bt th e s ub sta nc e w as m ariju an a. It is w ell settl ed in the st ate of Tennessee that a j ury is pr esumed to have fol lowed a tri al court ’s curat ive ins truc tion. State v. Lawson , 69

5 S .W .2d 20 2, 2 04 (T en n. C rim . Ap p. 1 98 5); State v. Blackmon , 701 S.W .2d 22 8, 2 33 (T en n. C rim . Ap p.), perm. to appeal denied , (T en n. 1 98 5). H ere , the ap pe llan t co m pla ins fro m tha t w hic h h e b en efitte d fo llow ing the tria l co urt gra ntin g h is m otio n fo r ac qu ittal in count two. The appell ant has fai led to est abli sh that t he jury di d not fol low this i nstruct ion. Thi s issue is w itho ut m erit. II. Sufficiency of the Evidence Se co nd , the ap pe llan t ch alle ng es the su fficie nc y o f the ev ide nc e to su sta in a co nv ictio n fo r pos ses sion of co cain e gre ater th an .5 gram s w ith the in tent to s ell and pos ses sion of dru g pa rap he rna lia. F ollo w ing a ju ry c on vic tion, the initia l pre su m ptio n o f inn oc en ce is re m ov ed from the defe nda nt an d ex cha nge d for o ne o f guilt, so th

at on app eal, the defe nda nt ha s the burd en o f de m on stra ting the ins uffic ien cy of th e e vid en ce . St ate v. T ug gle , 63 9 S .W .2d 91 3, 9 14 (T en n. 1 98 2). It is th e d uty of th is c ou rt to affir m the co nv ictio n u nle ss the ev ide nc e a dd uc ed at tr ial w as so de ficie nt that no rat ional t rierof fact could have found the essenti al elements of t he offense beyond a rea so na ble do ub t. Ja ck so n v . V irgin ia, 443 U.S. 307, 317, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed.2d 560 (19 79 ); State v. Cazes

, 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 ( Tenn. 1994); Tenn. R. App. P. 13( e). I n State v. Matthews , 80

5 S .W .2d 77 6, 7 79 (T en n. C rim . Ap p.), perm. to appeal denied , (Ten n. 19 90), th is cou rt held thi s rule i s applicabl e to fi ndings of gui lt predicat ed upon direct evi dence, cir cumstantial evidence, or a co m bin atio n o f bo th d irec t an d c ircu m sta ntia l ev ide nc e. Th is c ou rt do es no t rew eig h o r re ev alu ate the ev ide nc e, n or m ay w e re pla ce ou r infe ren ce s fo r tho se dra w n b y th e trie r of fa ct. State v. Cabbage

, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 ( Tenn. 1978). Further more, the State i s entit led to t he strongest l egiti mate view of the evidence and all reasonable inf erences6

w hic h m ay be dra w n th ere from . St ate v. H arr is , 83 9 S .W .2d 54 , 75 (T en n. 1 99 2), cert. denied , 507 U .S. 95 4, 1 13 S.C t. 13 68 , 12 2 L .E d.2 d 7 46 (19 93 ). A jur y v erd ict a cc red its th e te stim on y o f sta te’s w itne ss es an d re so lve s a ll co nflic ts in fav or o f the sta te’s the ory . State v. Willi ams

, 657 S.W.2d 405, 41 0 (T en n. 1 98 3). A. Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Sel l Th e a pp ella nt a rgu es tha t alth ou gh he ad m itted to liv ing at th e re sid en ce , Th om ps on on ly sta ted tha t he sta ye d th ere “off a nd on.” A lso , the ap pe llan t contends t here was no evidence ofdrugs on his per son or in t he bedroom where he w as found by t he offi cers. I n order to convi ct a defendant of possession with i ntent t o sell, the State i s required t o prove (1) the de fen da nt k no w ing ly p os se ss ed co ca ine in e xc es s o f .5 g ram s a nd (2) the de fen da nt’s po ss es sio n w as for th e p urp os e o f sa le. T en n. C od e A nn. § 3 9-1 7-4 17 (a) (4) (c) (1) (19 95 Su pp .). Po ss es sio n o f a c on trolle d s ub sta nc e c an be ba se d o n e ithe r ac tua l or c on stru ctiv e p os se ss ion. State v. Brown , 82

3 S .W .2d 57 6, 5 79 (T en n. C rim . Ap p. 1 99 1); State v. Cooper

, 736 S.W.2d 125, 129 ( Tenn. C rim . A pp . 19 87 ). T o c on stru ctiv ely po ss es s a dru g, th at p ers on m us t ha ve “th e p ow er a nd inte ntio n at a g iven time to ex ercise dom inion a nd c ontro l ove r the d rugs either direc tly or thro ugh othe rs.” Cooper , 736 S.W.2d at 129 ( quoti ng State v. Willi ams , 62 3 S .W .2d 121, 1 25 (T en n. C rim . Ap p. 1 98 1)) . M ore ov er, p os se ss ion m ay be ac tua l or c on stru ctiv e, e ithe r alo ne or jo intly w ith o the rs. State v. Copeland , 67

7 S .W .2d 47 1, 4 76 (T en n. C rim . Ap p.), perm. to appeal denied , (T en n. 1 98 4); Armstrong v. S tate , 54 8 S .W .2d 33 4, 3 37 (T en n. C rim . Ap p. 1 97 6), cert. denied , (Tenn. 1977). I f one person alone has actual orconstruct ive possession of a thing, possession is sol e. If two or more persons sh are ac tua l or co ns tru ctiv e p os se ss ion of a thin g, p os se ss ion is jo int. A p ers on ’s m ere pre se nc e in the are a w he re d rug s a re d isc ov ere d d oe s n ot s ho w po ss es sio n, a nd ne ithe r w ill as so cia tion w ith th e on e w ho is in co ntro l of d rug s. Cooper , 736 S.W.2d at 129. Pursuant t o Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-419 (19 91 ), in fer en ce s m ay be dra w n o f po ss es sio n w ith in ten t to s ale fro m the am ou nt o f the co ntr olle d su bs tan ce alo ng w ith o the r re lev an t fac ts s urr ou nd ing the arr es t.
Th rou gh the offic ers ’ surve illan ce , the y w itne ss ed nu m ero us ca rs c om ing an d g oin g fro m the resid enc e. Th e ap pellan t adm itted to th e office rs he lived a t the re side nce . He wa s left alo ne th ere7

w hile R os alin d T ho m ps on w as at w ork . H e s ha red co m m on fac ilities an d fre e a cc es s to all ro om s. Th e o ffice rs fo un d th e a pp ella nt in the be dro om w itho ut h is s hirt a nd sh oe s p rep arin g to sh ow er. In the ba thro om , the offic ers fou nd a p las tic b ag an d a tinfo il pa ck et b oth co nta inin g c rac k c oc ain e. In additi on, the of fi cers found two packets of pl asti c bags, one-inch bags, and a cellophane packet co nta inin g c rac k c oc ain e. E xp ert tes tim on y fr om the crim e la bo rat ory de ter m ine d th at th e to tal a m ou nt of c oc ain e re co ve red w eig he d 2 .2 g ram s a nd 3.8 gra m s. T he se co m bin ed fac tor s c on stitu te s uffic ien t pro of to pe rm it a ra tion al ju ror to in fer b ey on d a rea so na ble do ub t tha t the ap pe llan t po ss es se d th e co ca ine w ith in ten t to s ell. B. Possession of Drug Paraphernalia Th e a pp ella nt’s arg um en ts fo r this co nv ictio n a re th e s am e (a ) he did no t res ide in th e h om e an d (b ) the re w as no dru g p ara ph ern alia on his pe rso n n or in the be dro om w he re h e w as fou nd . In order to convi ct the appel lant of possessing drug paraphernali a, the st ate was required t o prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he ( 1) possessed with int ent to use, (2) equipment, pr oducts or m ate rials , (3) inte nd ed for “ ... pa ck ag ing, rep ac ka gin g, . . ., c on tain ing, . . ., ing

es ting , inh alin g, o r othe rwis e intro duc ing” a con trolled s ubs tanc e into the h

um an b ody . Ten n. C ode An n. §§ 39-1 7-40 2 (12) a nd-4 25(a )(1) (S upp . 199 5).
Th e S tate m et its bu rden of pro of tha t the p lastic b ags and crac k pip e w ere d rug pa rap he rna lia. T he sa m e c on stru ctiv e p os se ss ion an aly sis ab ov e a pp lies he re. T he offic ers fou nd the ho m em ad e c rac k p ipe in th e b ath roo m w he re th e a pp ella nt w as pro ce ed ing to ta ke a s ho w er. T he offic ers als o fo un d tw o p ac ke ts o f pla stic ba gs an d o ne -inc h b ag s in the lau nd ry r oo m an d ro lling pa pe rs in the res ide nc e w hile he ha d fre e a cc es s to all ro om s o f the ho us e. A cc ord ing ly, w e h old tha t the rec ord co nta ins su fficie nt p roo f fro m w hic h a rat ion al tr ier of fa ct c ou ld in fer the ap pe llan t po ss es se d d rug pa rap he rna lia Although the evi dence in thi s case was circumstantial , a convict ion may rest enti rely upon circ um sta ntia l ev ide nc e. See D uh ac v. S tate , 50 5 S .W .2d 23 7, 2 41 (T en n. 1 97 4), cert. denied , 419 U .S. 8 77 , 95 S.C t. 14 1 (1 97 4); State v. Hailey , 65

8 S .W .2d 54 7, 5 52 (T en n. C rim . Ap p.), pe rm . to8

appeal deni ed , (T

en n. 1 98 3). In ord er fo r a c on vic tion to s tan d b as ed on circ um sta ntia l ev ide nc e a lon e, the fact s must be “so clearly i nterwoven and connected that t he finger of guil t i s pointed unerr ingl y at the d efen dan t and the d efen dan t alone .” State v. Black, 81 5 S

.W .2d 16 6, 1 75 (T en n. 1 99 1) ( citin g State v. Duncan , 698 S.W.2d 63 (Tenn. 1985)). The weight t o be given circumstanti al evidence and “the in feren ces to be draw n from suc h ev iden ce, a nd th e ex tent to w hich the c ircum stan ces are con sisten t with g uilt and inco nsiste nt w ith inno cen ce, a re qu estion s prim arily for th e jury .” Marable v. State , 203 Te nn. 4 40, 3 13 S .W .2d 4 51, 4 56-5 7 (19 58).
In the case at bar , the evi dence points unerri ngly at t he appellant . The only evidence pre se nte d a t tria l to in dic ate the dru gs be lon ge d to so m e e lse w as the eq uiv oc al te stim on y o f R os alin d Th om ps on. In v iew of th e p ros ec utio n’s im pe ac hm en t of th is w itne ss ba se d u po n p rior inc on sis ten t statements and contradi ctory t esti mony o ff ered at tr ial the jur y was clearly ent it led to gi ve her testi mony litt le i f any weight. Therefore, t he jury coul d easily i nfer f rom all t hese circumstances and the clo se pro xim ity o f the dis co ve red co ca ine an d d rug pa rap he rna lia to the ap pe llan t tha t his inte ntio n w as to e xe rcis e d om inio n a nd co ntro l ov er it.
Af ter a r ev iew of th e re co rd, w e fin d n o e rro r re qu iring rev ers al. T he jud gm en ts o f co nv ictio n en tere d b y th e tria l co urt a re a ffirm ed .

____________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, Judge

CONCUR:

______________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge9

______________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, Judge