Opinion ID: 1631747
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficient evidence existed to convict Cantrell of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Text: Cantrell argues there was insufficient evidence to convict him of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. At trial, Cantrell did not contest the existence of the methamphetamine lab in the trailer, methamphetamine on the scene, or the recovery of drug paraphernalia from the trailer, but rather claimed that his estranged wife, Mary, was the owner of everything in the trailer. A person is guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine when he knowingly and unlawfully manufactures methamphetamine or with intent to manufacture methamphetamine possesses two (2) or more chemicals or two (2) or more items of equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine. See KRS 218A. 1432(1). A person is guilty of possession of a controlled substance in the first degree when he knowingly and unlawfully possesses a controlled substance that contains any quantity of methamphetamine. See KRS 218A.1415(1). A person is guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia when he is found in possession of any equipment, products and materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance in violation of this chapter. See KRS 218A.500(1). The Commonwealth introduced evidence of numerous items recovered from the trailer. This included two hollowed-out light bulbs containing residue and three bottles containing sediment or residue. Lab tests conducted on the residue or sediment in each of these five items confirmed the presence of methamphetamine. Further, officers testified that, from their experience, light bulbs converted in this fashion are used for ingesting methamphetamine. Unable to challenge the above evidence, Cantrell relies instead on his claim that the Commonwealth failed to connect him to the trailer. Therefore, the question before us is whether the Commonwealth introduced any evidence establishing Cantrell's connection to the trailer. The Commonwealth introduced evidence that Cantrell was climbing out a window of the trailer and attempting to flee when officers arrived on the scene. See Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, wherein this Court recognized that proof of flight to elude capture or to prevent discovery is admissible because `flight is always some evidence of a sense of guilt.' 107 S.W.3d 215, 218-19 (Ky.2003) (citations omitted). Officers also noted how Cantrell and Dalton were unseasonably dressed when they were apprehended. In addition, officers testified that there was the presence of a strong odor of ammonia on the clothes of both Cantrell and Dalton. Cantrell led the officers to believe the trailer was his home. The written consent form Cantrell signed allowing officers to search the trailer clearly indicated Cantrell was giving them consent to search the home of Brent Cantrell. Cantrell's black truck was parked in front of the residence. Finally, we note that after the charges were brought, Cantrell presented the trial court with a motion to suppress evidence seized from his home in violation of his constitutional rights. Before leaving this issue, we also note that Cantrell was indicted on each of these three offenses as having acted in complicity with Shawna Dalton and Dale Wells. As this Court has held: Complicity liability requires (1) proof of commission of an offense by another person and (2) proof of the defendant's participation in commission of that offense. Parks v. Commonwealth, 192 S.W.3d 318, 327 (Ky. 2006) (citation omitted). When the evidence presented is taken as true and viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we cannot say it was clearly unreasonable for the jury to find guilt. Thus, we conclude sufficient evidence existed to convict Cantrell on each of the three offenses, and we reject his claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict as to each of the three counts.