Title: STATE v SMITH
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-386
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 21, 1983

NO. 82-386 I N T H E SUPREME COUET O F TEE STATE O F 3IOPJTAP.IA 1983 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- JOE SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court o f t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District, I n and f o r t h e County of Rosebud, The Honorable Alfred B. Coate, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Garry P. Bunke, Forsyth, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana John S. Forsythe, County Attorney, Forsyth, 14ontana - - Submitted on B r i e f s : January 2 0 , 1903 Decided: A p r i l 7 , 1983 Filed: APR 7 - 1983 C Clerk Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n by a Rosebud County j u r y f o r f e l o n y c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n of dangerous d r u g s . W e a f f irm. On December 1, 1981, d e f e n d a n t a p p l i e d f o r a $2,000 l o a n w i t h t h e Cheyenne Western Bank i n Ashland, Montana. Smith t o l d bank p e r s o n n e l t h a t t h e l o a n was t o r e p a y h i s p a r e n t s f o r money t h e y had l e n t him. The l o a n w a s g r a n t e d on December 3 , 1981, and t h a t day Smith s e n t a Western Union money o r d e r i n t h e amount o f $3,900 t o h i s b r o t h e r , Nathan, i n F l o r i d a . H e p a i d a $60 f e e t o Western Union f o r s e n d i n g t h e money o r d e r . A bank l o a n o f f i c e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t even w i t h t h e l o a n Smith d i d n o t have s u f f i c i e n t money i n s a v i n g s o r checking a c c o u n t s t o be a b l e t o amass $3,960. On December 7 , 1981, a r e l i a b l e p o l i c e i n f o r m a n t t o l d O f f i c e r L a r r y P r i c e t h a t d e f e n d a n t had s e n t a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of money o u t of M i l e s C i t y v i a Western Union t o buy drugs. H e a l s o informed t h e o f f i c e r t h a t two o t h e r p e r s o n s were i n v o l v e d i n t h e p l a n and t h a t t h e package of m a r i j u a n a was s c h e d u l e d t o a r r i v e i n Ashland, Montana, between t h e 1 6 t h and t h e 1 8 t h of December. P r i c e c o n t a c t e d Western Union and v e r i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t had s e n t a money o r d e r f o r $3,900 t o a Nathan Smith i n F o r t Myers, F l o r i d a . H e t h e n c o n t a c t e d t h e Ashland p o s t m a s t e r and asked him t o watch f o r a package from F l o r i d a a d d r e s s e d t o Smith and t o l e t P r i c e know when it a r r i v e d . P r i c e r e c e i v e d a c a l l from t h e p o s t m a s t e r on December 1 7 , 1981, and w a s t o l d t h a t it would be a good day t o conduct a c o n t r o l l e d s e a r c h of t h e p o s t o f f i c e t h a t he had been r e q u e s t i n g t o do f o r some t i m e w i t h h i s t r a i n e d , drug- s n i f f i n g dog. P r i c e took an envelope of m a r i j u a n a t o t h e p o s t o f f i c e , gave it t o a p o s t a l employee t o h i d e , and t h e n d i r e c t e d t h e dog t o s e a r c h f o r it. The dog found t h e envelope. It a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t one package among s e v e r a l s i t t i n g on t h e f l o o r c o n t a i n e d d r u g s . It was a d d r e s s e d t o Smith and had been mailed from F l o r i d a . P r i c e and o t h e r members of t h e Rosebud C o u n t y s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e t h e n s t a k e d o u t t h e p o s t o f f i c e and w a i t e d f o r d e f e n d a n t t o p i c k up t h e package. On December 1 8 , 1981, d e f e n d a n t and h i s w i f e , Nelda, a r r i v e d a t t h e p o s t o f f i c e . Smith w a i t e d o u t s i d e i n t h e i r p i c k u p w h i l e Nelda picked up t h e package. She p l a c e d t h e box on t h e f r o n t s e a t of t h e t r u c k and pushed it t o t h e middle of t h e s e a t . P r i c e t h e n approached t h e Smiths and asked d e f e n d a n t i f t h e box belonged t o him. H e r e p l i e d "yeah." P r i c e t o l d t h e Smiths a b o u t t h e c o n t r o l l e d s e a r c h h e had conducted and informed them of h i s s u s p i c i o n s t h a t t h e package c o n t a i n e d i l l e g a l d r u g s . Defendant s t a t e d t h a t t h e package was supposed t o c o n t a i n Christmas p r e s e n t s , and he a g r e e d t o accompany t h e o f f i c e r s t o J u s t i c e Court t o open t h e box. H e v o l u n t a r i l y c a r r i e d t h e package t o a p o l i c e v e h i c l e and p l a c e d it i n s i d e . H e then rode t o J u s t i c e Court i n t h e p o l i c e c a r , removed t h e package from t h e c a r and c a r r i e d it i n s i d e . F i n a l l y , Smith s i g n e d a c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h form, and t h e o f f i c e r s opened t h e box. I t c o n t a i n e d s i x t e e n pounds o f m a r i j u a n a , a few p i e c e s of f r u i t , and a n o t e t h a t s a i d "Merry Christmas." J o e and Nelda Smith were b o t h a r r e s t e d f o r c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n of dangerous d r u g s . The c h a r g e s a g a i n s t Nelda were l a t e r dropped. F u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e F l o r i d a ad- d r e s s was n o n e x i s t e n t . The l o a n t o Smith is c u r r e n t l y unpaid. No w i t n e s s e s were c a l l e d on b e h a l f of d e f e n d a n t t o e x p l a i n what happened t o t h e $3,900 he s e n t t o F l o r i d a . Defendant p r e s e n t s a s i n g l e i s s u e on a p p e a l : Is t h e e v i d e n c e is s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n of dangerous d r u g s ? Smith a r g u e s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n o f p o s s e s s i o n o f dangerous d r u g s s i n c e he d i d n o t have s u f f i c i e n t time t o t e r m i n a t e c o n t r o l o v e r t h e package d e l i v e r e d by f i r s t - c l a s s mail. W e d i s a g r e e . Felony c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n of dangerous d r u g s , as d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 45-9-102, MCA, r e q u i r e s proof t h a t a d e f e n d a n t : (1) p o s s e s s e d ( 2 ) dangerous d r u g s . " P o s s e s s i o n " is d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 45-2-101(52), MCA, as: " t h e knowing c o n t r o l of a n y t h i n g f o r a s u f f i c i e n t t i m e t o be a b l e t o t e r m i n a t e c o n t r o l . " The S t a t e , t h e r e f o r e , must e s t a b l i s h t h a t Smith knew of t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e package and t h a t he c o n t r o l l e d t h e dangerous d r u g s f o r a s u f f i c i e n t amount o f t i m e t o be a b l e t o t e r m i n a t e c o n t r o l . T h i s Court h a s adopted t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a n d a r d of a p p e l l a t e review o f s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e : "Whether, a f t e r viewing t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , any r a t i o n a l t r i e r of f a c t c o u l d have found t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of t h e crime beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt." J a c k s o n v. V i r g i n i a ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 6 1 L.Ed.2d 560, 573; S t a t e v. Wilson ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mon t . , 631 P.2d 1273, 1279, 38 St.Rep. 1040, 1047. I n a p p l y i n g t h a t s t a n d a r d t o t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e i n s t a n t case, w e h o l d t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e sup- p o r t s d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n f o r f e l o n y c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n of dangerous drugs. S u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s f i n d i n g s t h a t Smith knew of t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e package and t h a t he c o n t r o l l e d t h e c o n t e n t s f o r a s u f f i c i e n t t i m e t o be a b l e t o t e r m i n a t e c o n t r o l . The S t a t e p r o p e r l y concedes t h a t e v i d e n c e which simply e s t a b l i s h e s d e l i v e r y o f d r u g s by f i r s t - c l a s s m a i l is i n s u f - f i c i e n t t o demonstrate c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n of d r u g s . The S t a t e a l s o concedes t h a t t h e f a c t a p e r s o n is t h e named a d d r e s s e e of a p a r c e l d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e s u f f i c i e n t e v i - dence of c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n . Knowledge of t h e c o n t e n t s must be proven. Knowledge may be proved by d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o r by evidence of a c t s , d e c l a r a t i o n s , o r conduct of t h e accused from which a j u r y may i n f e r knowledge. S t a t e v. Anderson ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 344, 351, 498 P.2d 295, 299. Here, s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s a f i n d i n g o f s u c h knowledge. Defendant o b t a i n e d a bank l o a n of $2,000 f o r t h e s t a t e d purpose of repaying h i s p a r e n t s . On t h a t d a t e , h i s own r e s o u r c e s t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e l o a n were i n s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w him t o accumulate cash i n t h e amount of n e a r l y $4,000. Y e t on t h a t d a t e , he wired n e a r l y $4,000 t o F l o r i d a by Western Union. A r e l i a b l e i n f o r m a n t t o l d O f f i c e r P r i c e t h a t d e f e n d a n t and two o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s planned t o send money t o F l o r i d a f o r a drug buy and t h a t t h e package o f m a r i j u a n a would be d e l i v e r e d between December 16 and 18. A package w i t h s i x t e e n pounds of m a r i j u a n a t h e n a r r i v e d on December 17. The r e t u r n a d d r e s s on t h e box was bogus. The l o a n h a s n o t been r e p a i d . No e v i d e n c e was i n t r o d u c e d t o e x p l a i n what happened t o t h e money s e n t t o F l o r i d a . Nothing i n d i c a t e d that defendant's parents actually received any of the $2,000 that Smith borrowed. Sufficient evidence supports defen- dant's knowledge of the package contents. Similarly, the record sustains defendant's conviction for knowing "control for a sufficient time to be able to terminate control." This Court has long recognized that a conviction for possession of dangerous drugs need not be predicated upon a finding of actual possession. Constructive possession may suffice. State ex rel. Galyan v . District Court (1971), 156 Mont. 523, 480 P.2d 840 (per curiam order). The control need not be exclusive but may extend to situations where the contraband is "immediately and exclu- sively accessible to the accused and is subject to his dominion or control, or to the joint dominion and control of the accused and another." State v . Meader (1979), Mont . , 601 P.2d 386, 392, 36 St.Rep. 1747, 1754; State v . Godsey (1982), Mont. , 656 P.2d 811, 815, 39 St.Rep. 2354, 2358. Constructive possession is a factual determination to be made by the trier of fact. State ex rel. Galyan v . District Court, 156 Mont. at 524, 480 P.2d at 840; State v. Meader, 601 P.2d at 392, 36 St.Rep. at 1755. In a case analogous to the instant case, we recognized constructive possession where the defendant exercised con- trol over a baggage claim ticket for baggage which contained marijuana. State v. Trowbridge (1971), 157 Mont. 527, 487 P.2d 530. In Trowbridge the defendant had checked baggage containing the contraband and then boarded her flight under an assumed name. The suitcase handle and claim check some- how were separated from the luggage and airline employees opened the bag to try to establish identification. They discovered the contraband and notified law enforcement officers. When the handle was subsequently located, the owner and destination were determined and Missoula law enforcement officers were informed. When the defendant's bag did not arrive on her flight, she filled out a luggage claim form describing the missing suitcase. She provided the name and telephone number of a Bruce Bennett as the place she could be reached. Bennett was notified when the baggage arrived and picked it up for Trowbridge. Trowbridge was arrested outside of the airport as she waited for Bennett to deliver the suitcase. Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence here shows that defendant's control of the contra- band began when he placed an order for the marijuana and sent the money to Florida via Western Union. At that point he began to exert control over the drugs. He could have cancelled the order. He could have himself claimed the package with the postal claim ticket and immediately dis- posed of it. The fact that he sent his wife in to pick up the box, as Carolyn Trowbridge had sent Bruce Bennett to pick up the luggage, does not negate the control he exer- cised over the package. Nor was defendant prevented from deciding to simply not claim the parcel. We reject Smith's argument that he was afforded no opportunity to terminate control because he was immediately confronted by a police officer . Substantial credible evidence sustains the conviction. Affirmed. 3 4 8 g Chief ~ustice u4 We concur: