Opinion ID: 1967813
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Denial of Guinn's Motion for Acquittal For Possession With Intent to Deliver Cocaine

Text: At the conclusion of the State's evidence, Guinn moved for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine. The trial judge denied the motion. On appeal, Guinn claims that the denial of his motion was error. We review this claim de novo, to determine whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found the essential elements of possession with intent to deliver cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt. [4] To prove the crime of possession with intent to deliver, the State must establish three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) knowing possession (2) a narcotic Schedule II controlled substance, and (3) an intent to deliver. Guinn does not contest that the State established the first two elements. His challenge is limited to the claim that the State did not prove that he possessed the cocaine with intent to sell or deliver it. We disagree. In our view, the evidence would permit a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Guinn possessed the 2.45 gram rock of crack cocaine for purposes of sale, and not for personal consumption. First, the quantity of the drug  2.45 grams  was indicative of an intent to sell or deliver. The probation officer, Douglas Watts, testified that in his experience, crack cocaine users (as opposed to sellers) possess much smaller quantities, e.g., 0.1 or 0.2 gram pieces. The single rock of cocaine found on Guinn was ten times that amount. Second, when the police searched Guinn, they found no device to facilitate personal consumption, such as a pipe, stem or other device to ingest the crack cocaine. Third, the fact that Guinn was found in possession of a small screwdriver was probative, because, as Officer Watts testified, a screwdriver was the kind of instrument that crack cocaine dealers could use to break off smaller pieces of the drug for street sales of 0.1 or 0.2 grams. Fourth, the amount of cash ($424) found in Guinn's cargo pants far exceeded the amounts that an active crack cocaine user would be expected to possess in the high crime area of South New Street. As Officer Watts testified, active cocaine users have less money because of their drug habits. Officer Kuntzi testified that he would have expected to see only one or two $20 bills if Guinn were solely a cocaine user. In this case Guinn had six $20 bills, one $50 bill and one $100 bill; and in his years of experience, Officer Kuntzi had never encountered a crack cocaine user with a $100 bill. Fifth, and finally, Guinn's contradictory and incongruous statements to the authorities when he was searched evidenced an intention to avoid any connection with either the cash or the drugs found in his pants. When he was taken into custody, Guinn initially claimed that the $424 cash belonged to his girlfriend. He later contradicted that statement and claimed that the money belonged to another male subject who had been walking down the street with him. Guinn also claimed that the pants he was wearing did not belong to him, but he never revealed the identity of the alleged true owner. A rational trier of fact could reasonably find Guinn's claim that he was wearing someone else's pants containing over $400 in cash, to be implausible. Although there may be alternative explanations for each of these five incriminatory circumstances, the totality of that evidence would have permitted a rational jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Guinn possessed the single crack cocaine rock with the intent to deliver that contraband. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Guinn's motion for a judgment of acquittal.