Opinion ID: 2588463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: DeVries challenges the sufficiency of the evidence relied upon by the trial court to find that she had a controlled substance and knowingly delivered a controlled substance. Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, it allows any rational trier of fact to find all of the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wash.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn from it. State v. Green, 94 Wash.2d 216, 222, 616 P.2d 628 (1980). As the United States Supreme Court noted, it is critical that our criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves the public to wonder whether innocent persons are being condemned. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). `[T]he reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable, for it impresses on the trier of fact the necessity of reaching a subjective state of certitude on the facts in issue.' State v. Hundley, 126 Wash.2d 418, 421-22, 895 P.2d 403 (1995) (quoting Winship, 397 U.S. at 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068). The State charged DeVries with knowingly delivering a controlled substance, in violation of RCW 69.50.401(a). [3] The necessary elements of the crime are (1) delivery of a controlled substance, and (2) knowledge that the substance delivered was a controlled substance. RCW 69.50.401(a)(1)(ii); State v. Hernandez, 85 Wash.App. 672, 675, 935 P.2d 623 (1997). The State was required to plead and prove that DeVries knew that she was delivering a controlled substance. [4] State v. Nunez-Martinez, 90 Wash.App. 250, 255, 951 P.2d 823 (1998). Several young women, all classmates of the accused, testified to the incident which occurred that day at Columbia High School in Walla Walla. [5] No eyewitness, including Mannen, gave any testimony suggesting DeVries referred to the pill as a controlled substance or an illegal drug. In fact, no eyewitness to the incident reported hearing DeVries refer to the pill as anything other than an energy pill. Each denied that anyone referred to the pill given to Mannen as an amphetamine, methamphetamine, speed or any street name for amphetamine. [6] One witness, Megan Hoover, recalled DeVries telling Mannen the pill could mess you up and that something bad could happen to her if she reacted to it in a different way. RP at 42. Hoover also testified that someone had said the pills had made someone else horny. RP at 44. The trial court found the statements of Hoover sufficient to infer the pills were a controlled substance and DeVries knew they were a controlled substance. The court reasoned: [M]ore important, was statements attributed to the defendant that I think it was Debra Hoover, that said that the defendant told [Mannen], no, you shouldn't take this. This will mess you up. That tells me that the defendant knew this was dangerous of some sort. And I think from that one can certainly make an inference that if it's going to mess you up you shouldn't take it. That number one, it's dangerous, and number two, it may well be a controlled substance. RP at 159 (emphasis added). [7] Deputy Humphreys offered equivocal evidence that, in an interview with him, DeVries referred to the pill as ecstasy: THE COURT: Let's clarify. You say you don't have it in your notes, and it doesn't say there. What you are about to say, is this a personal recollection? Do you remember what she said?
RP at 76. As the trial judge acknowledged, the deputy's testimony was weak: [8] [I]s there some circumstantial evidence that ... she knew this had to be a controlled substance. I find there was. Admittedly it is circumstantial. Well, I'm not even sure about that. The officer, I have to admit, his testimony was a little weak that somebody was talking about this being Ecstasy. He finally ended up saying I think it was she that said that ... he was not real sure. RP at 159. Despite the lack of evidence that the energy pill DeVries gave Mannen was ecstasy, the trial court found the evidence regarding ecstasy supportive of the State's claim that DeVries knew the pill she gave Mannen was a controlled substance: Giving some validity to the Ecstasy claim, ... I think it was [Hoover] that said there was some reference to this is going to make you horny. Well, that ties in with Detective Bolster that this has got a reputation, Ecstasy that is, for being some kind of sex drug. So that seemed that's consistent with this being the drug, Ecstasy. I don't buy at all that people wouldn't know that Ecstasy is a controlled substance. Anybody that knows anything knows that Ecstasy is a controlled substance. RP at 159-60. The trial court supplemented Deputy Humphreys' testimony with Hoover's testimony that someone said the pills made someone else horny to find DeVries knew the pill was ecstasy. [9] Finally, the trial court concluded DeVries knew the pills were a controlled substance because Deputy Humphreys testified DeVries changed her story about how many pills she had. DeVries initially said that there was just one pill and later acknowledged she had four pills. The court stated: I think the other thing that convinced me, circumstantially, that the defendant knew this was a controlled substance was that she changed her story with the officer.... If she honestly thought this wasn't a controlled substance she would have had no reason to say right out, yeah, I had these pills. I thought they were an energy pill or vitamin pill or something. I think her hesitancy to admit she had these pills to me is circumstantial evidence. She knew this was a controlled substance. So I find the defendant guilty. RP at 160. No witness testified that any one referred to the pills given to Mannen as anything other than an energy pills. The evidence supporting the conclusion that DeVries knew she was delivering a controlled substance is as follows: One witness's testimony that DeVries said the pill could mess you up, that something bad could happen to [Mannen] if she reacted to it in a different way, and that the pills had made someone horny, RP at 42, 44; Deputy Humphreys' testimony that DeVries or someone else had called the pill ecstasy; and Evidence that at first DeVries said she had no pills, and then said she had one pill, and later four pills. We conclude, based on this evidence, no rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the pill DeVries gave to Mannen was a controlled substance or that DeVries knew the pill was a controlled substance. [10]