Opinion ID: 1657032
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The defendant asserts the trial court erred in failing to grant her motion for judgment of acquittal based on the insufficiency of the evidence to establish that the marijuana and methamphetamine found by the police in her apartment belonged to her. See generally State v. Allen, 304 N.W.2d 203, 206 (Iowa 1981) (A motion for judgment of acquittal is a means for challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction....). The standards governing our review of such claims are well established: We review a sufficiency-of-the-evidence ruling for correction of errors of law. If the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, we will uphold a finding of guilt. `Substantial evidence' is that upon which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In conducting our review, we consider all the evidence, that which detracts from the verdict, as well as that supporting the verdict. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Hagedorn, 679 N.W.2d 666, 668-69 (Iowa 2004) (citations omitted). Viewed in a light most favorable to the State, the jury could have found the following facts. On August 22, 2002, Woodbury County Deputy Robert Aspleaf served a writ of removal and possession at Henderson's apartment. (Henderson was the only person on the lease.) The writ required Aspleaf to remove the defendant and her possessions from the apartment and place the landlord in possession of the premises. Aspleaf was accompanied by the landlord and three helpers brought by the landlord. When this group arrived at Henderson's apartment, the deputy knocked loudly several times, but no one answered. The landlord's master key did not work because the door had been locked from the inside. Consequently, a helper forcibly kicked the door open, revealing the defendant standing on the other side of the doorway. Over profanity-laced protests from Henderson, the landlord and his helpers began to pack up Henderson's belongings. The deputy attempted to calm her down, but the defendant's agitation escalated to the point where she pushed one of the men who was packing her electronic components. Upon being informed she was under arrest, Henderson retreated to the only bedroom in the apartment and slammed the door shut. The deputy followed her and placed her under arrest for interference with official acts. After other officers arrived to take Henderson to the police station, the deputy began to look at the items in the apartment to determine whether there was anything that should not be set out on the curb, for example, knives, weapons, or pornographic materials. During this process he discovered the following contraband: (1) on top of the refrigerator in the kitchen, a clear plastic bag containing what appeared to be marijuana; (2) on the coffee table in the living room, a homemade pot pipe, [1] an ashtray with pieces of a blunt [2] in it, and two clear plastic bags, one with a yellowish residue and one with remnants of plant material in it; (3) in the bedroom between the mattresses, a small silver tube of the type used to smoke methamphetamine; (4) in the same bedroom on the headboard, a similar, but larger-diameter, tube with burn marks on the ends, a homemade pipe or smoking device for marijuana made of tinfoil with burn residue, and a clear plastic bag containing what appeared to be methamphetamine; and (5) in an end table in the same bedroom, two bags containing what appeared to be marijuana, a forceps commonly used to smoke marijuana, a small piece of tinfoil commonly used to smoke methamphetamine with burn marks on it, and two outside barrels of ink pens that could be used to snort methamphetamine. The substance found on the refrigerator and the substance found on the headboard were tested and confirmed to be marijuana and methamphetamine, respectively. These items provided the basis for Henderson's prosecution for two counts of possession of a controlled substance in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2001). Deputy Aspleaf testified at trial that another woman was present in the apartment during these events, Lisa Williams. Williams was cooperative and did not attempt to obstruct the eviction process. She told the deputy that she had only been staying at the apartment for a few days after having a fight with her mother. When the deputy asked her if any of the drugs they found were hers, Williams stated they were not. The deputy also testified that both Henderson and Williams had prior convictions for possession of marijuana. Henderson had been convicted of this offense in 1998, and Williams' conviction was in 1991. In addressing the sufficiency of this evidence, we first examine the State's burden of proof: Unlawful possession of a controlled substance requires proof that the defendant: (1) exercised dominion and control over the contraband, (2) had knowledge of its presence, and (3) had knowledge that the material was a controlled substance. State v. Bash, 670 N.W.2d 135, 137 (Iowa 2003). Henderson challenges the sufficiency of the State's proof on the first element: her dominion and control over the marijuana and the methamphetamine. Because the contraband was not found on the defendant's person, the State sought to prove Henderson's constructive possession of the illegal substances. See id. at 138 (Possession can be either actual or constructive.). Constructive possession occurs when the defendant has knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance and has the authority or right to maintain control of it. Id. The existence of constructive possession turns on the peculiar facts of each case. State v. Webb, 648 N.W.2d 72, 79 (Iowa 2002). Notwithstanding the fact-specific inquiry on this element, inferences are often used to prove constructive possession. See id. at 76-79 (discussing history of inferences supporting constructive possession). One such inference of dominion and control arises when the premises on which the illegal substances are found are in the exclusive possession of the accused. State v. McDowell, 622 N.W.2d 305, 308 (Iowa 2001). That inference is of no assistance to the State here, however, because at the time of this incident, the premises were shared by Henderson and Williams. See Bash, 670 N.W.2d at 138; State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 877-78 (Iowa 2003). Under these circumstances, the defendant's authority or right to maintain control of the drugs must be established by proof in addition to the fact that the drugs were found in the defendant's apartment. See Bash, 670 N.W.2d at 138; Webb, 648 N.W.2d at 77, 79. We think the record contains such proof. There was no suggestion in the evidence that the contraband found in Henderson's apartment belonged to anyone other than Henderson or Williams. We think the jury could have concluded from the very disparate reactions of these individuals to the presence of the deputy on August 22, 2002 that the drugs belonged to Henderson. When the deputy's party entered Henderson's apartment, they were greeted by Henderson's defiant opposition to their presence. She swore at them and insisted that she would move her own belongings. She yelled at them to leave and physically interfered with their efforts to pack her property. Eventually, she retreated to the bedroom, specifically to the side of the bed where the methamphetamine was found. In contrast, Williams cooperated with the persons moving the defendant's personal belongings and even carried some of Henderson's clothes to Henderson's car. Henderson's conduct implied guilty knowledge; Williams' conduct did not. See Webb, 648 N.W.2d at 79 (stating a defendant's incriminating actions when drugs are discovered support a finding that defendant had right to exercise control over drugs); State v. Cox, 500 N.W.2d 23, 25 (Iowa 1993) (Admissions may be implied by the conduct of the defendant subsequent to a crime ... when such conduct indicates a consciousness of guilt.). Certainly one could also explain the defendant's response to the situation by the fact that she was the object of a forcible eviction from her residence. On the other hand, Williams' obliging manner was not consistent with one who had something to hide. Moreover, Williams denied the drugs were hers. Other facts also support a finding that the drugs belonged to Henderson. Illegal substances were found throughout the apartment, together with multiple items of drug paraphernalia, some of which showed signs of use. Although some of these items were in plain view, some were in drawers, or in the case of a pipe used to smoke methamphetamine, between the mattresses. The quantity of drugs and drug paraphernalia in the premises, their widespread disbursement throughout the apartment, and their location in places that would not ordinarily be used by a guest suggest that these items did not belong to a temporary visitor, but rather to the person residing there. The defendant relies on our decision in Webb, where this court held there was insufficient evidence to connect the defendant to the illegal substances found in his apartment. 648 N.W.2d at 82. That case is easily distinguished. In Webb, the defendant shared the residence where drugs were found with two other individuals. Id. at 75. Although the other occupants of the residence were home at the time of the officers' arrival on the scene, Webb did not get home until the search was well underway. Id. When he did arrive, he exhibited no suspicious behavior. Id. at 75, 80. Unlike the case before us, there were no circumstances that showed the drugs belonged to the defendant as opposed to the other residents of the apartment. We conclude there is sufficient evidence in the present case to support a finding that Henderson had the authority or right to exercise dominion and control over the contraband found in her apartment. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal.