Court Opinion

ID: 9731364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:43:16.808168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:17.307143
License: Public Domain

Brickley, C.J.
(dissenting). At issue in this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence from which to conclude the defendant possessed cocaine for the purposes of MCL 333.7401; MSA *27814.15(7401). The majority has concluded that while defendant did not have actual physical possession of the drugs, the doctrine of constructive possession is sufficiently broad to include the conduct of the defendant. Because I believe that the majority has misconstrued the parameters and purpose of this doctrine, and has set a problematic precedent, ■ I respectfully dissent.
i
There can be no dispute that the defendant was a highly active drug dealer who, under Michigan’s statutory scheme, deserves and has received life imprisonment. In addition to the charge at issue in this appeal, MCL 333.7401; MSA 14.15(7401), possession with intent to deliver over 650 grams of cocaine, defendant was convicted of MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1), conspiracy to possess over 650 grams of cocaine. Because defendant’s appeals concerning the latter charge have all failed, defendant will undoubtedly remain imprisoned for life irrespective of how this Court presently rules. Hence, the primary significance of this decision will be its value as precedent.
ii
The concept of "possession” has been a major source of contention and controversy in narcotics cases. Traditionally, the imposition of criminal liability for possession was limited to situations in which actual possession existed. See Singer, Constructive possession of controlled substances: A North Dakota look at a nationwide problem, 68 ND L R 981, 982 (1992). However, common sense and the needs of law enforcement have dictated a broader interpretation of the concept than simply actual physical possession. Hence, the majority *279opinion provides, and I agree, that direct proof of actual, physical possession at the time of arrest is not necessary for a conviction under MCL 333.7401; MSA 14.15(7401). Ante at 271. To require such proof would render it difficult to enforce Michigan’s drug possession statutes. It is not infrequent that at the time of arrest a drug supplier or user is not in actual physical possession of drugs.
The expansion in the application of possession statutes has generally been analyzed under the rubric of "constructive possession.” For example, in People v Mumford, 60 Mich App 279; 230 NW2d 395 (1975), the police entered the defendant’s apartment pursuant to a search warrant 'and found the defendant standing near a coffee table in the living room brandishing a gun. On the coffee table was a strainer, tinfoil, and 7.8 grams of heroin. The defendant was the sole occupant of the apartment, and his wallet and mail addressed to him were found in the bedroom. The Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant could be said to have constructively possessed the heroin even though he did not actually, physically possess it at the time of his arrest:
The circumstantial evidence bearing on possession in this case consists of defendant’s exclusive presence in the apartment under circumstances indicating that he was an inhabitant, not a mere visitor. Additionally, defendant was near the coffee table on which, in plain view, were what appeared to be narcotics and narcotics paraphernalia. Finally, the jury could reasonably infer from the fact that defendant brandished a gun, that he was exercising control over the heroin with knowledge of its character. [Id. at 283.]
"Constructive possession” is a doctrine used to *280broaden the application of possession-type crimes to include situations in which actual physical control cannot be directly proved. LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law (Student ed), § 3.2(3), p 286. The purpose of the constructive possession doctrine is to expand the scope of possession statutes to encompass those cases in which actual possession at the time of arrest cannot be shown, but "where the inference that there has been possession at one time is exceedingly strong.” First Report of the National Commission of Marijuana and Drug Abuse, Appendix, p 139 (1972). Hence, "constructive possession” refers to prior actual physical possession that can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding an arrest.
The doctrine of constructive possession has also been used to reach drug kingpins and others who utilize representatives to actually handle controlled substances. As pointed out in United States v Manzella, 791 F2d 1263, 1266 (CA 7, 1986) "[i]t would be odd if a dealer could not be guilty of possession, merely because he had the resources to hire a flunky to have custody of drugs.” In People v Davis, 109 Mich App 521; 311 NW2d 411 (1981), an agent of the defendant agreed to pick up an illegal substance, pay for it, and deliver it to the defendant. The defendant’s agent was apprehended by police officers after he obtained the substance, but before he was able to deliver it to the defendant. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant had constructive possession of the controlled substance because, even though he never had actual possession of the illegal substance, another person purchased and possessed the substance as his agent. Id. at 527.
In agency law, the principal and his agent share a legal identity; it is a fundamental rule that the principal is bound, and liable for, the acts of his *281agent done with the actual or apparent authority of the principal. See, e.g., People v Aaron, 409 Mich 672, 731; 299 NW2d 304 (1980); People v Lawton, 196 Mich App 341, 352; 492 NW2d 810 (1992). It follows that principals in the drug trade are liable for the actions of their agents, and that a drug boss can be said to possess drugs found in the hands of his minions.
Generally, in most states, including Michigan, a person has constructive possession of narcotics that are under his "dominion and control.” See, e.g., People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508; 489 NW2d 748 (1992); People v Germaine, 234 Mich 623; 208 NW2d 705 (1926). This test has been criticized for failing to provide any real guidance in determining whether a person possessed drugs. Two commentators have stated that "defining possession in the traditional terms of dominion or control is simply not informative in any functional manner. The terms 'dominion’ and 'control’ are nothing more than labels used by courts to characterize given sets of facts.” Whitebread & Stevens, Constructive possession in narcotics cases: To have and have not, 58 Va LR 751, 759-760 (1972). Circuit Judge Tamm of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stated in a concurrence:
The rhetorical legerdemain compounded in this area of the law invokes abstractions which appear more designed to achieve a particular result in an individual case than to stabilize and formalize a workable index of objective standards. The more cases one reads on constructive possession the deeper is he plunged into a thicket of subjectivity. [United States v Holland, 144 US App DC 225, 227, n 4; 445 F2d 701 (1971).]
Hence, in deciding whether defendant possessed *282controlled substances in violation of MCL 333.7401; MSA 14.15(7401), we must be careful to look beyond labels and buzzwords. As I believe is demonstrated by the majority opinion, an analysis of possession measured by "dominion” and "control” results in a vague and overinclusive test of possession. The basic question in possession cases must be whether the defendant or his agent had actual physical possession of controlled substances at the time of arrest, i.e., had "possession,” or .whether it can be inferred from the evidence that at some earlier time the defendant or his agent ever actually physically possessed the cocaine at issue, i.e., had "constructive possession.”1
hi
The majority concludes that there was in fact sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant constructively possessed the cocaine at issue: "The evidence permits the conclusion that the defendant had paid for the drugs and that they were his — that is, that he had the intention and power ... to exercise control over them.” Ante at 273. In reaching this conclusion, the majority perfunctorily declares that Joel Hamp was the agent of defendant, and that therefore defendant had control of the drugs in Hamp’s possession. Citing Davis, supra, the majority specifically argues that Michigan courts have recognized that *283defendants may constructively possess substances that their agents have bought for them. Ante at 274. Undoubtedly this is true and if. this rule had any relevance to this case it would be dispositive. However, it does not.
In its first section, the Restatement of Agency defines agency as "the fiduciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act.” 1 Restatement Agency, 2d, § 1, p 7. See also Saums v Parfet, 270 Mich 165; 258 NW 235 (1935). An "agent” is a person having express or implied authority to represent or act on behalf of another person who is called his principal. Burton v Burton, 332 Mich 326; 51 NW2d 297 (1952); Lincoln v Fairfield-Nobel Co, 76 Mich App 514; 257 NW2d 148 (1977).
There was no evidence produced at trial from which a reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Hamp acted for or represented defendant by the defendant’s authority and control. The majority points to the facts that defendant arranged with Hamp and others to purchase a kilogram of cocaine, instructed Hamp when to come to his house with the delivery, and, after his arrest, instructed his wife to "direct” Joel not to come. Ante at 273. This presentation of the evidence is incomplete and also fails to show the requisite authority or control necessary for an agency relationship.
The uncontroverted evidence presented by the prosecutor2 was that defendant arranged for the cocaine with a person named Chris during a golf game approximately two weeks before defendant’s *284arrest. During this meeting, defendant told Chris that he was "ready,” which indicated to Chris that defendant needed more cocaine. This was the fourth time that Chris had supplied defendant with cocaine. Subsequently, either Hamp or a person known as Todd3 came to defendant’s house and defendant paid $40,000 cash for a kilogram of cocaine. This evidence can only suggest that Hamp, if it was him at all, was acting as an agent of the person named Chris. Only after the meeting with Chris did his apparent agent engage the defendant. It is interesting that Chris, not defendant, here appears to be the sort of "kingpin,” i.e., one who controls the disposition of cocaine but never himself possesses it, that the doctrine of constructive possession was intended to reach.
The testimony at trial further showed that on August 30, Hamp called defendant and asked him to meet him somewhere to execute a delivery because everything was "together.” Defendant told Hamp to instead stop by his house at approximately 7:00 p.m. Later, as defendant was being led away from his home by police, he told his wife to call "Joel” and tell him not to come to look at his motorcycle. The majority apparently believes that this ability to schedule and cancel meetings demonstrates sufficient control by defendant to show he had an agency relationship with Joel Hamp.
The test of whether an agency has been created is whether the principal has a right to control the actions of the agent. Meretta v Peach, 195 Mich App 695, 697; 491 NW2d 278 (1992). However, any amount of control is not sufficient. A threshold of control must obtain in order to establish an *285agency relationship. Little v Howard Johnson Co, 183 Mich App 675, 680; 455 NW2d 390 (1990). The ability to schedule an appointment, in which one person informs another when he is or is not available, or to cancel an appointment does not involve the level of control necessary. If this were the case, an agency relationship would be established when a person orders a pizza or cancels delivery of laundry.
It is noteworthy that in Manzella, supra, the case so heavily depended on by the majority, Judge Posner concluded that defendant did not constructively possess narcotics.4 This is noteworthy because defendant exercised a level of control similar to the defendant in this case. In Manzella, the defendant was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The defendant served as a broker for various suppliers and would match prospective buyers with these suppliers. Judge Posner found this ability to schedule meetings insufficient for a finding of constructive possession unless the defendant could assure delivery. 791 F2d 1267. There was no evidence presented at trial that the defendant in Manzella or the defendant in this case could assure the delivery of any cocaine. In fact, defendant depended on Chris and his agents for his supply of cocaine.
The majority also points to Davis, a Michigan case in which the Court of Appeals properly found an agency relationship. In that case, the defendant gave a prescription to a co-worker who agreed, at the defendant’s request, to pick up the prescription, pay for it, and deliver it to the defendant, whereupon the defendant would reimburse the co*286worker for the purchase price. 109 Mich App 524. This case exhibits the classic attributes of an agency relationship. While there was evidence of authority to represent and consent and the ability to control the actions of an agent in Davis, no such evidence was presented in the case before us.
iv
In addition to its declaration of agency, the majority highlights two facts as independently sufficient to conclude that defendant constructively possessed the drugs at issue: (1) the fact that the drugs "merely awaited delivery,” and (2) the fact that defendant had paid for the drugs. To my mind, these factors in combination are simply insufficient to support a finding of constructive possession, and are clearly insufficient independently.
In support of its conclusion, the majority does not turn to precedent of this state, but instead looks to federal authority. The majority argues that United States v Harold, 531 F2d 704 (CA 5, 1976), stands for the proposition that drugs that "merely await delivery” are in the constructive possession of the intended recipient. I disagree. In Harold, the defendant waited in a car while his wife went into an airport and picked up a package addressed to the defendant. After she had picked up the package, but before she returned to the car, the defendant and his wife were arrested. The finding of constructive possession was based on the agency theory discussed above. In fact, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit specifically pointed to the agency relationship between the defendant and his wife in ascribing constructive possession to the defendant:
The fact that the package containing the heroin *287was addressed to Tom Barber, and that his wife picked it up apparently as his agent while he waited outside in his car, is enough to indicate sufficient dominion and control by Tom Barber to support the finding of constructive possession. [Id. at 705. Emphasis added.]
The court made no mention of the fact that the defendant "merely awaited delivery” of the drugs in finding constructive possession. A key to its conclusion appears to have been the agency relationship between the defendant and his wife. The fact that the drugs were addressed to the defendant simply corroborates the premise that his wife was acting as his agent.
The majority also contends that United States v Russo, 796 F2d 1443 (CA 11, 1986), stands for the proposition that payment for drugs may constitute constructive possession. Again, I disagree. The majority states:
In addition, the evidence indicates that the defendant had already paid for the cocaine. In some circumstánces, courts have held that evidence that a defendant had already paid for cocaine can be sufficient to support a finding of constructive possession. In United States v Russo, the court explained that "[w]hile the evidence might have been clearer on this point, it does tend to show that Sanchez and Granados had a financial interest in and at least part ownership of the drugs until they were distributed, sold, and Sanchez and Granados were paid.” [Ante at 275. Emphasis added; citation omitted.]
The majority neglects to state the active role the defendant played in the distribution and sale of these drugs. Defendant Sanchez, in partnership with Granados, was the main supplier of drugs to the Bedami organization. Sanchez participated in *288the planning of several drug importation schemes. He provided the drugs for these ventures, and at least once unloaded the drugs himself at a "stash” house. Moreover, he inspected the drugs himself to make sure that they were safely delivered. Russo, 796 F2d 1460-1461. Obviously, a finding of constructive possession was based on much more than the defendant’s financial interest in the drugs.
The majority opinion rests on a precarious legal foundation. It is my belief that this is so because it has expanded the doctrine of constructive possession beyond its outer limits. In delimiting what I believe to be the proper parameters of constructive possession, I turn to the authority of this state.
v
Except for several prohibition cases, this Court has only addressed the concept of constructive possession of controlled substances in People v Wolfe, supra. In that case, an undercover officer purchased some crack cocaine at a Saginaw apartment with marked bills. Shortly thereafter, the police raided the apartment and found six individuals, a loaded shotgun, and an unspecified number of packets of crack cocaine. In the defendant’s possession, they found the marked bills, a beeper, and a key to the back door of the apartment. We described the doctrine of possession as follows:
A person need not have actual physical possession of a controlled substance to be guilty of possessing it. Possession may be either actual or constructive. Likewise, possession may be found even when the defendant is not the owner of recovered narcotics. . . .
In this case, there was no direct evidence that *289defendant Wolfe actually possessed the cocaine. Rather, the evidence at trial showed that he constructively possessed the cocaine, i.e., that "he had the right to exercise control of the cocaine and knew that it was present.” [Id. at 519-520. Citations omitted.]
We went on in Wolfe to state that constructive possession exists when the totality of the circumstances indicates a sufficient nexus between the defendant and the contraband. Id. at 522.
The case at bar can be readily distinguished from Wolfe. In Wolfe, the defendant was present at the house from which the drugs were being sold, he possessed a key to the house, and he was evidently in control of the premises. Further, there was substantial evidence that he was working with others in a drug-selling operation. From those facts, the jury properly inferred that the defendant at some time actually had possessed the cocaine. The defendant in this case conspired to possess drugs, with the intent to deliver them. He also made diligent efforts to possess the cocaine — he paid for the drugs and he came within an hour of receiving them. But he never did. The drugs arrived too late. The defendant had been arrested and removed by the police before the drugs were delivered. Further, the drugs were not delivered to an agent of the defendant.
In reviewing the relevant case law of this state, it is apparent that constructive possession of controlled substances has always meant, at a minimum, that there was some evidence supporting an inference that at some time before arrest the defendant or his agent actually physically possessed the controlled substance at issue. I can find no case of constructive possession from this state *290that provides otherwise.5 Moreover, I believe this to be the better rule. As stated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, constructive possession only broadens the application of possession to those cases in which "the state cannot prove actual or physical possession at the time of arrest but where the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed the substance and did not abandon his possessory interest in the substance but rather continued to exercise dominion *291and control over it up to the time of the arrest.” State v Florine, 226 NW2d 609, 610-611 (Minn, 1975).
To argue that the defendant in this case possessed the subject drugs is to expand the meaning of the term "possession” beyond its ordinary meaning in contravention of prior precedent of this Court. People v Harper, 365 Mich 494, 506-507; 113 NW2d 808 (1962); see also Mumford, supra at 282-283. If a person makes a mail order purchase with his credit card and then awaits delivery, few would argue that he "possesses” the object for which he has paid until he or perhaps another member of the household (i.e., his agent) has received delivery. I have no doubt that the defendant tried mightily to obtain possession of cocaine, but he failed. And while he may be culpable for an inchoate crime, i.e., attempted possession, he cannot be said to be guilty of the substantive offense of possession.
The Legislature created the separate category of inchoate "attempt” crimes specifically for cases such as this. It is the nature of "attempts” that the attempted crime is not completed. People v Robinson, 23 Mich App 672, 676; 179 NW2d 239 (1970). An "attempt” has been defined as an overt act done with the intent to commit the crime, and which, except for the interference of some cause preventing the carrying out of the intent, would have resulted in the commission of the crime. People v Davenport, 165 Mich App 256, 263; 418 NW2d 450 (1987). The defendant had the intent to commit the crime of possession of drugs and performed an overt act in furtherance of this intent when he paid for them. But for the interference of the police, who arrested the defendant and took him into custody, the defendant’s intent would have been fulfilled, and he would have come into *292possession of the drugs. The defendant’s arrest rendered the defendant’s criminal act incomplete, and he should only be prosecuted as the Legislature has deemed appropriate. The majority opinion renders indistinguishable the crimes of possession and attempted possession.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a commonsense application of the rule established by the majority presents disturbing results. The majority suggests that a person can be said to possess controlled substances if he has paid for their purchase or if he merely awaits delivery. Even if these elements are required in conjunction, this new rule of constructive possession is highly troublesome. For example, unscrupulous law enforcement officers could offer narcotics at a bargain price. As soon as a person made payment, the police could, pursuant to the majority opinion, establish that the person constructively possessed the drugs and merely awaited delivery. The police need not actually have drugs to deliver, nor must the defendant actually take receipt of them. In addition to presenting serious questions of entrapment, this formulation of constructive possession extends too far the limits of criminal culpability.
VI
The majority has misconstrued the parameters and purpose of the doctrine of constructive possession. Because the facts proved at trial are insufficient to support defendant’s possession conviction, I respectfully dissent.
Levin and Cavanagh, JJ., concurred with Brickley, C.J.

 The use of the term "constructive” to modify “possession” is admittedly ambiguous and is a source of the considerable confusion surrounding the doctrine of constructive possession. As stated above, I believe the use of this term in the context of possession properly means “inferable.” The majority seems to interpret it to mean that there are facts or conduct which, while not ever amounting to actual physical possession, should nonetheless be concluded to be possession for the purposes of the law. For the reasons I articulate below, I find this interpretation untenable.

 It is noteworthy that all evidence presented at trial was that of the prosecutor. Defendant did not present a case and in fact also waived his opening statement.

 There was a conflict in the testimony of two Livonia police officers. One stated that defendant told him that a person named "Todd” picked up the $40,000 while the other stated that it was Hamp who picked up the money.

 It is unclear why Judge Posner’s discussion in this case is the "foremost discussion of what is necessary to have dominion or control over drugs . . . .” Ante at 271. However, given the findings of Judge Posner, I happily agree with the majority on this point.

 In People v Harper, 365 Mich 494; 113 NW2d 808 (1962), marijuana was found in the trunk of the defendant’s automobile; in People v Vander Heide, 211 Mich 1; 178 NW 78 (1920), the defendant had baggage checks in his possession that corresponded to the trunks where liquor was stored; in People v Williams, 188 Mich App 54; 469 NW2d 4 (1991), the defendant was discovered by police officers in an abandoned home attempting to destroy packets of cocaine because of the presence of the officers; in People v Downey, 183 Mich App 405; 454 NW2d 235 (1990), drugs were found in the closet of the defendant’s home; the defendant also stated that he owned the drugs; in People v Richardson, 139 Mich App 622; 362 NW2d 853 (1984), cocaine was found in a drawer of a water bed located in one of the bedrooms of the apartment. Also found in the drawer were several receipts and other personal papers with the defendant’s name on them; in People v McManus, 121 Mich App 380; 328 NW2d 636 (1982), drugs were found in the defendant’s desk in the room in which he kept all his personal and business records; in People v Sammons, 191 Mich App 351; 478 NW2d 901 (1981), the defendant provided a police officer with a sample of cocaine, participated in discussions regarding future sales, expressed interest in the denomination of the bills used to purchase the drugs, and told the police officer, "we” do not like to keep the drugs and money in the room at the same time; in People v Delongchamps, 103 Mich App 151; 302 NW2d 626 (1981), a forty-three pound bale of marijuana was found in the trunk of the defendant’s rented automobile, which was rented with the defendant’s credit card; while the ignition key was found in the possession of a codefendant, the trunk key was found in the possession of the defendant; in People v Maliskey, 77 Mich App 444; 258 NW2d 512 (1977), at the time of his arrest, the defendant appeared to be under the influence of narcotics; moreover, the defendant had needle marks on his arm, and narcotics and narcotics paraphernalia were found in the building in which the defendant was arrested; and in People v Iaconis, 29 Mich App 443; 185 NW2d 609 (1971), the defendants arrived at a home frequently for short periods of time under the influence of heroin; moreover, on the night of a police raid, the defendants were found in proximity to heroin and narcotics paraphernalia, and one of the defendants had blood marks on his shirt and a raised black and blue mark and two red dots on his arm. See also my discussions of People v Wolfe, People v Davis, and People v Mumford, in the text of this opinion.