Opinion ID: 1443013
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the evidence to prove intent to deliver against either defendant as an individual.

Text: The State cites many cases for the proposition that an inference of intent to deliver may be drawn in cases of non-exclusive possession of premises where drugs are found. We hold that those cases are distinguishable. For example, State v. Greene, 100 Idaho 464, 600 P.2d 140 (1979), included a statement by the defendant that he knew about the marijuana on the premises but not the heroin, at a time before the heroin was found there by the police. State v. Clayton, 101 Idaho 15, 607 P.2d 1069 (1980), involved a defendant who denied knowledge of the heroin found, but was a registered heroin addict, admitted taking heroin near the time of arrest, and admitted that he knew there was marijuana in his home. United States v. Davis, 562 F.2d 681 (D.C. Cir.1977), involved a veritable pharmacopeia of illegal drugs found on the premises in overwhelming quantities and a profusion of paraphernalia. United States v. James, 494 F.2d 1007, cert. denied 419 U.S. 1020, 95 S.Ct. 495, 42 L.Ed.2d 294 (1974), included evidence of written drug sales transactions and substances used to dilute drugs for sale. Williams v. United States, 4 F.2d 432 (D.C. Cir.1925), involved a drug transaction monitored by the police. In short, the cases cited by the State involve huge quantities of drugs, admissions by defendants, observed drug sales, extremely suspicious activity, records of drug sales, and other circumstances which are independently indicative of intent to deliver by individual defendants. In the present case there is insufficient evidence to find that both appellants are guilty of the intent to deliver marijuana based solely on their occupancy in the premises where the drugs were discovered. The State further argues that marijuana found in the personal effects of each defendant provides the vital link between each individual and the quantities of marijuana in the residence. In the case of Gary Randles, there was a film canister which appeared to contain marijuana seeds found on a piece of furniture which contained his personal papers. The contents of the canister were never analyzed. We hold that this evidence is insufficient to establish that Randles had the intent to deliver. First, it was not established that the seeds were in fact marijuana seeds. Also, the fact that an item of evidence was found on a communal piece of furniture containing Randles' papers is not sufficient to tie Randles to all the marijuana found in the residence. There was also a sandwich bag containing marijuana found in a purse in the kitchen. There were other items in the purse bearing the name of Sue Ernst. There is no evidence as to the quantity of the marijuana that was in the baggie. We hold that this evidence, the marijuana packaged in a baggie found in the purse, which expert testimony established as the type of packaging normally used to distribute marijuana for sale, was sufficient to identify Sue Ernst as an individual with the marijuana being dried, processed, weighed and packaged throughout the house. The contents of the baggie were definitely identified as marijuana, and there is more than sufficient evidence to identify Ernst as the owner of the purse in which it was found. Appellants point out that there was a check made out to Gary Randles and a receipt for a post office box in Randles' name found in the purse as well. However, that fact does not rebut the evidence that the purse was the property of Sue Ernst, nor does it tend to prove that Gary Randles shared control over the purse. We hold that the quantity of marijuana found in a baggie in Sue Ernst's purse is sufficient to tie her as an individual to the marijuana found throughout the residence. Thus, applying the O'Campo factors enumerated above to the marijuana and paraphernalia found within the residence, the jury had sufficient evidence to believe that Sue Ernst had the intent to deliver a controlled substance.