Opinion ID: 2029756
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Nitcher's claim the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to convict him of aiding and abetting or conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of products with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, and failure to affix a drug tax stamp.

Text: Our review of Nitcher's motion for judgment of acquittal requires us to examine the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's guilty verdict. State v. Bash, 670 N.W.2d 135, 137 (Iowa 2003). `We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a guilty verdict for correction of errors at law' and `[w]e will uphold a verdict if substantial record evidence supports it.' Id. (citation omitted). Evidence is considered substantial if, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it can convince a rational jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Inherent in our standard of review of jury verdicts in criminal cases is the recognition that the jury was free to reject certain evidence, and credit other evidence. State v. Anderson, 517 N.W.2d 208, 211 (Iowa 1994). Because Nitcher does not assert the law in the instructions was incorrect, but rather the evidence did not support the jury's finding, we will examine his claims in view of the instructions the district court gave to the jury. State v. Shanahan, 712 N.W.2d 121, 134 (Iowa 2006). In regards to count I, Nitcher claims the evidence was not sufficient to prove he entered into an agreement with anyone to manufacture methamphetamine or that he knowingly and actively participated or encouraged such. The district court instructed the jury that the State relied on the alternative theories of aiding and abetting as well as conspiracy to prove its case under count I. In particular, the jury was instructed that the crime of conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance required the State to prove the following elements: 1. On or about the 30th day of December, 2003, [Nitcher] agreed with one or more other persons: a. that one or more of them would manufacture a controlled substance, or b. attempt to manufacture a controlled substance. 2. [Nitcher] entered into the agreement with the intent to promote or facilitate the crime of manufacturing a controlled substance. 3. [Nitcher] or the other person or persons committed an overt act. 4. The other person or persons were not law enforcement agents investigating the offense or assisting law enforcement agents in the investigation when the conspiracy began. The court further instructed the jury [t]he State must prove [Nitcher] and the other person or persons came to a mutual understanding the offense would be attempted or committed. As to the crime of aiding and abetting the manufacture of a controlled substance, the jury was instructed that the State was required to prove the following elements: (1) On or about the 30th day of December, 2003, [Nitcher] aided and abetted the manufacture of methamphetamine; and (2) [Nitcher] knew that the substance he aided and abetted in manufacturing was methamphetamine. The court further instructed the jury: Aid and abet means to knowingly approve and agree to the commission of a crime, either by active participation in it or by knowingly advising or encouraging the act in some way before or when it is committed. Conduct following the crime may be considered only as it may tend to prove a defendant's earlier participation. Mere nearness to, or presence at, the scene of the crime, without more evidence, is not aiding and abetting. Likewise, mere knowledge of the crime is not enough to prove aiding and abetting. Our review of the record causes us to conclude substantial evidence supports the jury finding of guilt as to the crime of conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance. Nitcher does not dispute methamphetamine was manufactured at some time at the residence. Additionally, the facts that Nitcher's clothing smelled of ether, the proximity of the coffee filters to his clothes, and Nitcher's fingerprint on a pie plate that contained pseudoephedrine and triprolidine support the jury's finding he was involved with the process. The evidence of Nitcher's fingerprint on the pie plate not only supports the jury's finding he was involved in the process to manufacture methamphetamine, but also permits the inference of an agreement. Cf. State v. Speicher, 625 N.W.2d 738, 742-43 (Iowa 2001) (explaining an agreement to sustain a conviction for conspiracy may be inferred from proof of involvement in the methamphetamine-manufacturing process). The jury could believe Nitcher entered into such an agreement with Hull, as his fingerprint was also on the pie plate. Finally, other manufacturing-related items found by the officers in the same area as the pie plate, the chemical odors, and the moistness of the substances found could lead a jury to find the methamphetamine-making process had occurred recently. This same evidence also supports the jury's finding that Nitcher knowingly participated in or encouraged the manufacture of methamphetamine; thus, there is substantial evidence to support a conviction on the alternate theory of aiding and abetting. See State v. Williams, 674 N.W.2d 69, 71 (Iowa 2004) (stating if alternative theories of culpability are submitted to the jury and a general verdict is returned, all theories must be supported by substantial evidence). In regards to count II, Nitcher claims under the pre-amended version of Iowa Code section 124.401(4), [1] the statute governing this charge, there is no evidence that he intended to use any precursors to manufacture methamphetamine. Nitcher also contends the evidence failed to show he constructively possessed the precursors. The district court instructed the jury that the crime of possession of products with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance required the State to prove the following elements: 1. That on or about December 30, 2003, [Nitcher] knowingly possessed any product containing any of the following: ethyl ether, anhydrous ammonia, red phosphorous, lithium, iodine, thionyl chloride, chloroform, palladium, perchloric acid, tetrahydrofuran, ammonium chloride, magnesium sulfate, or pseudoephedrine. 2. That [Nitcher] possessed any of the above with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine. The court further instructed the jury: The word possession includes actual as well as constructive possession, and also sole as well as joint possession. A person who has direct physical control of something on or around his person is in actual possession of it. A person who is not in actual possession, but who has knowledge of the presence of something and has the authority or right to maintain control of it either alone or together with someone else, is in constructive possession of it. If one person alone has possession of something, possession is sole. If two or more persons share possession, possession is joint. 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. Bash, 670 N.W.2d at 137. Constructive possession may not be inferred from a defendant's sharing of the premises with others; such possession must be established by other proof, such as incriminating statements made by the defendant, incriminating actions of the defendant upon the police's discovery of the controlled substance among or near the defendant's personal belongings, the defendant's fingerprints on the packages containing the controlled substance, and any other circumstances linking the defendant to the controlled substance. Id. at 138. Evidence supporting the jury's finding that Nitcher was in possession of products with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance includes Nitcher's presence in a residence emanating odors of ether and anhydrous ammonia, clothing belonging to Nitcher that smelled of ether, coffee filters found in close proximity to the clothing, and Nitcher's fingerprint on a pie plate that contained pseudoephedrine and triprolidine. The odors and moistness of the substances found indicate the process had occurred recently. Nitcher's clothing containing an ether smell and his fingerprint on the pie plate containing pseudoephedrine constitutes substantial evidence to establish the possession link between him and the products when viewed in the context of the other evidence in this case. See State v. Heuser, 661 N.W.2d 157, 166 (Iowa 2003) (finding a defendant possessed precursors with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine based on the sum of facts). The State was also required to prove Nitcher himself intended to manufacture methamphetamine. See State v. Truesdell, 679 N.W.2d 611, 617-19 (Iowa 2004) (examining the legislative change to section 124.401(4) and concluding, in cases where the pre-amended version applies, this statute required the defendant intend to use the product to manufacture a controlled substance (emphasis added)). Here, Nitcher's clothing smelled of ether and was found in close proximity to coffee filters. This evidence coupled with the burn pile that contained punctured cans of starting fluid support the jury's finding that he intended to manufacture methamphetamine. Likewise, Nitcher's fingerprint on the pie plate that contained pseudoephedrine, which was consistent with the preparation of the precursor in methamphetamine manufacture, support such intent. All the items tested by the division of criminal investigation contained pseudoephedrine. Again, the odors and moistness of the substances found indicate the process had occurred recently. When viewed in the context of the other evidence in this case, there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that Nitcher himself intended to use the products to manufacture methamphetamine. See Heuser, 661 N.W.2d at 166 (finding intent to manufacture methamphetamine from facts that circumstantially proved such intent). In regards to count III. Nitcher claims the evidence failed to show he constructively possessed the methamphetamine, so he had no duty to affix a drug tax stamp. In this count, the crime of a drug tax stamp violation required the State to prove the following elements: 1. On or about the 30th day of December, 2003, [Nitcher] knowingly possessed a taxable substance as defined in [another instruction]. 2. [Nitcher] possessed seven or more grams of the taxable substance. 3. The taxable substance that [Nitcher] possessed did not have permanently affixed to it a stamp, label or other official indication of payment of the state tax imposed on the substance. The district court further instructed the jury that a taxable substance is defined as a controlled substance, a counterfeit substance, a simulated controlled substance, or marijuana, or a mixture of materials that contains a controlled substance, counterfeit substance, simulated controlled substance or marijuana. The evidence that Nitcher's clothing contained an ether smell and his fingerprint was on the pie plate containing pseudoephedrine constitutes substantial evidence to establish the connection between him and the products. In the same area as the pie plates, there was an odor of ether, the plastic container of methamphetamine, and methamphetamine between cracks in the floorboards. The odors and moistness of the substances found indicate the process had occurred recently. This constitutes substantial evidence to support the jury's finding as to the possession link between Nitcher and the methamphetamine when viewed in the context of the other evidence in this case. Cf. State v. Webb, 648 N.W.2d 72, 81 (Iowa 2002) (recognizing possession is a necessary component of a drug tax stamp charge, and inferences of constructive possession must be drawn from facts that have a `visible, plain, or necessary connection' with such possession (citation omitted)). Accordingly, there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding of guilt as to the drug tax stamp violation. Therefore, substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that Nitcher was guilty of conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance, possession of products with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance, and failure to affix a drug tax stamp.