Court Opinion

ID: 9668622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:19:35.100592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:46.525229
License: Public Domain

CADY, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
*83I agree with the interpretation of our legal principles on constructive possession as outlined by the majority. Essentially, our law provides that the elements of knowledge and control cannot be inferred from joint possession of the premise. Reeves, 209 N.W.2d at 23. I have no disagreement with this law. Instead, my disagreement is with its application to the jury verdict in this case.
If the State had based its prosecution of the offense of possession of marijuana solely on an inference that Webb possessed the drugs because he resided in the apartment with two other adults, I would have no dispute with the conclusion drawn by the majority. No person should be guilty by association. However, this case is not based on such an inference. Instead, there was other evidence from which the jury could have reasonably concluded Webb had knowledge and control of •the drugs. This other evidence included the amount and extent of the drugs and drug paraphernalia around the apartment, and the fact that Webb was unemployed but possessed a large amount of cash. The cash primarily consisted of $20 bills, and testimony revealed this was indicative of proceeds of illegal drug sales. Additionally, there was evidence Webb was found guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver from the same apartment only nine months earlier. We specifically recognize this is the type of evidence that can be used to show a person’s knowledge of the presence of drugs and the intent to sell drugs. Iowa R. Evid. 5.404(6). Similarly, this evidence should logically be considered to show possession and control. Rule 5.404(6) permits evidence of other crimes to be admitted “for other purposes,” not just those specific purposes listed in the rule. Id. (Evidence may “be admissible for other purposes, such as ....” (Emphasis added.)). Although none of this evidence alone may support a finding of possession in this case, taken as a whole, it is enough to support the jury’s finding.
A verdict of possession of marijuana does not offend our law against an inference of possession based on joint occupancy as long as there is other evidence to support a finding of possession. See Reeves, 209 N.W.2d at 23. Although the evidence of possession was not overwhelming in this case, I would conclude there was sufficient evidence under our standard of review of jury verdicts to support the finding of guilt.