Court Opinion

ID: 9927982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 17:03:47.773463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:28:21.947400
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                  AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

                                     IN THE
              ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
                                 DIVISION ONE

                        STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

                                         v.

            DUSTIN CLINTON THOMAS JAMISON, Appellant.

                              No. 1 CA-CR 22-0575
                                FILED 1-30-2024

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
                         No. S8015CR201900579
                The Honorable Derek C. Carlisle, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Jill L. Evans, Flagstaff
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Emily Tyson-Jorgenson
Counsel for Appellee

                           MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.
                          STATE v. JAMISON
                          Decision of the Court

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1            Dustin Clinton Thomas Jamison appeals his convictions and
sentences for one count of possession of dangerous drugs for sale
(methamphetamine) and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia.
For the following reasons, we affirm.

              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            In 2019, Jamison worked for several months as an informant
for the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(“ATF”). His handler was Special Agent Fletcher Ogg. Jamison signed a
written agreement stating that he would conduct controlled purchases
under the direction of ATF and acknowledging that “any violation of the
law not expressly authorized by ATF may result in my prosecution.” Agent
Ogg repeatedly warned Jamison not to buy or sell drugs unless directed to
by Agent Ogg.

¶3           On March 28, 2019, Agent Ogg was surveilling the house of a
known drug dealer named Jessica when he saw Jamison’s vehicle parked
in her driveway. Agent Ogg had not asked Jamison to be there at that time,
and Jamison had not told him he was going to the drug dealer’s house.

¶4           Later that day, Agent Ogg saw Jamison driving and pulled
him over for a traffic violation. Jamison stepped out of his vehicle, and
Agent Ogg observed that he was sweaty, shaky, nervous, and looked to be
under the influence of methamphetamine. Jamison appeared to have
something under his shirt, and when Agent Ogg lifted the shirt he found a
bag tied to Jamison’s belt buckle. Agent Ogg touched the bag and felt
shards of methamphetamine through the fabric.

¶5             Agent Ogg arrested Jamison, who admitted the bag contained
a half-ounce of methamphetamine and told Agent Ogg there was a needle
under his genitalia. Jamison denied planning to sell the methamphetamine
but admitted he had sold drugs while working for Agent Ogg before March
28. Agent Ogg permitted Jamison to remove the needle from his pants and
he gave it to Agent Ogg. A Mohave County Sheriff’s Office detective
booked Jamison into custody, and Agent Ogg gave the methamphetamine,
bag, and needle to the detective, who packaged the bag and
methamphetamine and placed them into evidence storage. The detective
disposed of the needle for safety reasons. The substance in the bag was
later tested and determined to be 13.8 grams of methamphetamine.

                                    2
                            STATE v. JAMISON
                            Decision of the Court

¶6           While in jail, Jamison called Agent Ogg. Jamison admitted he
got the methamphetamine Agent Ogg found on his person from Jessica.

¶7           Jamison was charged with one count of possession of
dangerous drugs for sale (methamphetamine), a class 2 felony, and one
count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony.

¶8           At trial, Jamison moved for judgment of acquittal pursuant to
Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 20. After argument, the
superior court denied the motion. The jury found Jamison guilty as charged
and found as an aggravating circumstance that he committed count 1 for
pecuniary gain.

¶9            The superior court sentenced Jamison to a presumptive
sentence of ten years in prison for count 1 and six months in prison for count
2, to run concurrently. It gave him credit for 140 days of presentence
incarceration.

¶10          Jamison timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A), 13-4031, and
-4033(A)(1).

                               DISCUSSION

¶11          Jamison argues the superior court erred by allowing the jury
to consider evidence of the drugs and paraphernalia at trial because the
State did not establish a sufficient chain of custody to authenticate the
evidence, and thus, there was insufficient evidence to support his
convictions. He also argues the superior court erred and violated his due
process rights by sustaining the State’s objection to questions he asked
Detective Jones on cross-examination.

I.     Chain of Custody

¶12          Because Jamison did not object to the admission of the drugs
and paraphernalia in the superior court, he must show that fundamental
error occurred. See State v. Jackson, 170 Ariz. 89, 93 (App. 1991).

¶13           “To prevail under this standard of review, a defendant must
establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error . . . caused
him prejudice.” State v. Robles, 213 Ariz. 268, 272, ¶ 12 (App. 2006) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).            “A defendant establishes
fundamental error by showing that (1) the error went to the foundation of
the case, (2) the error took from the defendant a right essential to his

                                      3
                            STATE v. JAMISON
                            Decision of the Court

defense, or (3) the error was so egregious that he could not possibly have
received a fair trial.” State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135, 142, ¶ 21 (2018).
“Prejudice is a fact-intensive inquiry, the outcome of which will depend . .
. upon the type of error that occurred and the facts of a particular case.”
State v. Dickinson, 233 Ariz. 527, 531, ¶ 13 (App. 2013) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). A defendant “must affirmatively prove
prejudice and may not rely upon speculation to carry his burden.” Id.
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

¶14           We review the superior court’s evidentiary rulings and
conclusion that the evidence has an adequate foundation for an abuse of
discretion. State v. McCray, 218 Ariz. 252, 256, ¶ 8 (2008); State v. Moreno, 26
Ariz. App. 178, 185 (1976) (“The ultimate decision of whether sufficient
foundation has been laid is within the sound discretion of the trial court.”).

¶15           Evidence is authenticated when there is “evidence sufficient
to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Ariz.
R. Evid. (“Rule”) 901(a). A foundation that satisfies Rule 901(a) “may be
laid by evidence either identifying the item or establishing chain of
custody.” State v. Steinle, 239 Ariz. 415, 420, ¶ 24 (2016).

¶16           “In the case of a narcotic which is readily susceptible to
alteration and substitution, once it has left the hand of the officer receiving
it and has come into the possession of others, a chain of possession must be
established to avoid any claim of substitution, tampering or mistake.
Failure to establish such a chain of possession will render the narcotic
inadmissible as evidence.” State v. Davis, 110 Ariz. 51, 53 (1973). “A party
seeking to authenticate evidence based on a chain of custody must show
continuity of possession, but it need not disprove every remote possibility
of tampering. Furthermore, [a party] need not call every person who had
an opportunity to come in contact with the evidence sought to be
admitted.” McCray, 218 Ariz. at 256, ¶ 9 (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted).

¶17           “Evidence which strongly suggests the exact whereabouts of
the exhibit at all times will often be sufficient for chain of custody
purposes.” Davis, 110 Ariz. at 53 (citation omitted). “[A]n exhibit is
admissible when it has been identified as being the same object about which
testimony is given and when it is stated to be in substantially the same
condition as at the time of the occurrence in question.” State v. Ritchey, 107
Ariz. 552, 556-57 (1971). “[M]arkings made by . . . investigating [officers]
and their testimony as to the condition of the exhibits provide sufficient
foundation for their admission in evidence, notwithstanding the inability

                                       4
                            STATE v. JAMISON
                            Decision of the Court

of the state to show a continuous chain of custody. Under such
circumstances, unless a defendant can offer proof of actual change in the
evidence, or show that the evidence has, indeed, been tampered with, such
evidence will be admissible.” Id. at 557. “Flaws in the chain of custody
normally go to the weight the jury gives to the evidence, not its
admissibility into evidence.” State v. Morales, 170 Ariz. 360, 365 (App. 1991).

¶18           Detective Jones testified that after he received the
methamphetamine, bag, and needle from Agent Ogg, he packaged the
methamphetamine and bagged and placed the evidence into the Mohave
County Sheriff’s Office’s evidence storage. Detective Jones disposed of the
needle for safety reasons. During his testimony, the prosecutor asked
Detective Jones to examine exhibit A9, which Detective Jones identified as
the envelope of evidence he packaged in this case. Detective Jones testified
that he knew it was the same envelope because it had his initials on it and
every seal, and the Sheriff’s Office department number written on the front.
Detective Jones agreed that the envelope looked the same or substantially
the same as when he last saw it. The prosecutor asked Detective Jones to
open the envelope, and after doing so, Detective Jones identified the
contents of the envelope as the bag of methamphetamine he received from
Agent Ogg and packaged in the envelope. Detective Jones testified that the
bag of methamphetamine looked the same or substantially the same as
when he last saw it. The State moved to admit the envelope containing the
bag of methamphetamine into evidence, and the court did so.1 When the
court asked whether defense counsel objected to the admission of the
evidence, counsel stated he had no objection. During Detective Jones’
testimony, the State also moved to admit the Mohave County Sheriff’s
Office’s chain of custody form, exhibit A10. Defense counsel did not object.
Detective Jones testified that nothing appeared out of the ordinary
concerning chain of custody of the evidence.

¶19          Mary Martinez, a forensic scientist with the Arizona
Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) who worked in the controlled
substance unit, testified about the analysis done on the methamphetamine,
DPS’s chain of custody report (exhibit A11), and the envelope from the
Mohave County Sheriff’s Office containing the methamphetamine and bag
(exhibit A9). The State moved to admit exhibit A11 during Martinez’
testimony, and defense counsel did not object. Martinez testified that the
envelope had a DPS bar code with the DPS case number that correlated to

1      The envelope and bag of methamphetamine were later replaced with
a picture of the envelope in digital evidence.

                                      5
                           STATE v. JAMISON
                           Decision of the Court

DPS’s chain of custody report. She further testified that nothing appeared
out of the ordinary concerning the chain of custody of the evidence.

¶20          Here, there was no evidence that the evidence was changed,
tampered with, or was anywhere other than the Sheriff’s Office or the DPS
crime lab. We find no error, fundamental or otherwise, with the superior
court’s determination that there was sufficient foundation to admit the
evidence.

II.   Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶21           Jamison argues his convictions should be vacated because the
superior court erred by denying his Rule 20 motion. See Rule 20(a)(1)
(“After the close of evidence on either side, and on motion or on its own,
the court must enter a judgment of acquittal on any offense charged in an
indictment, information, or complaint if there is no substantial evidence to
support a conviction.”).

¶22          For count 1, Jamison was convicted of possession of
dangerous drugs for sale (methamphetamine). The crime of possession of
dangerous drugs for sale (methamphetamine) requires proof that the
defendant knowingly possessed methamphetamine for the purposes of
sale. A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(2). For count 2, Jamison was convicted of
possession of drug paraphernalia. The crime of possession of drug
paraphernalia requires proof that the defendant used or possessed with the
intent to use “drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow,
harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test,
analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale or
otherwise introduce into the human body a drug in violation of this
chapter.” A.R.S. § 13-3415(A).

¶23          According to Jamison, there was insufficient evidence to
show that he committed the offense of possession of methamphetamine for
sale because evidence of the methamphetamine was admitted without
foundation for the reasons discussed above, and the State did not prove
“the identity of the drugs as methamphetamine, and the weight of the
drugs which was the basis of [Agent] Ogg’s opinion that they were
possessed for the purpose of sale.” As for the possession of drug
paraphernalia charge, Jamison similarly argues the bag was admitted
without foundation, and if the paraphernalia was the needle, that item was
neither submitted to the lab for testing, nor admitted into evidence.

                                     6
                           STATE v. JAMISON
                           Decision of the Court

¶24           We review the denial of a Rule 20 motion de novo. State v.
West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15 (2011). Substantial evidence is “proof that
reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a
conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at ¶ 16
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “When reasonable minds
may differ on inferences drawn from the facts, the case must be submitted
to the jury, and the trial judge has no discretion to enter a judgment of
acquittal.” State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 590, 603 (1997). We view the facts in the
light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all conflicts in
the evidence against the defendant. State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 509, ¶ 93
(2013); State v. Bustamante, 229 Ariz. 256, 258, ¶ 5 (App. 2012). “[I]n
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not distinguish
circumstantial from direct evidence.” State v. Borquez, 232 Ariz. 484, 487,
¶ 11 (App. 2013).

¶25           Substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdicts. The
testimony of the DPS forensic scientist established that the substance inside
the bag was a useable quantity of methamphetamine—13.8 grams. Agent
Ogg testified that he felt shards of methamphetamine through the fabric of
the bag when he touched it on Jamison’s person, and that, based on his
training and experience, 13.8 grams of methamphetamine was a saleable
amount. The evidence also showed that Jamison told Agent Ogg that the
bag contained a half-ounce of methamphetamine. As discussed above, the
superior court did not err in finding there was sufficient foundation to
admit evidence of the methamphetamine.

¶26            At trial, the State argued that the drug paraphernalia could be
either the bag or the needle. Whether the jury relied on the bag or needle
as the drug paraphernalia for the possession of drug paraphernalia
conviction, sufficient evidence also supported that conviction. As
discussed above, the superior court did not err in finding there was
sufficient foundation to admit evidence of the bag, and the evidence
showed that Jamison used the bag to store or contain the
methamphetamine. As for the needle, the fact that DPS did not test it does
not negate its identity as drug paraphernalia because the actual presence of
drugs is not required. See A.R.S. § 13-3415(A) (essential elements of drug
paraphernalia). Although it is true that the needle was not presented to the
jury, the evidence shows that Jamison told Agent Ogg he had the needle
under his genitals, Jamison gave the needle to Agent Ogg, and Agent Ogg
gave the needle to Detective Jones, who disposed of it for safety reasons.
Agent Ogg’s and Detective Jones’ testimony about the needle and the
recording of Jamison telling Agent Ogg about the needle was sufficient
evidence to support the conviction.

                                      7
                            STATE v. JAMISON
                            Decision of the Court

¶27           Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State,
a rational juror could have found the essential elements of possession of
methamphetamine for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia beyond a
reasonable doubt. See West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 15. Because substantial
evidence reasonably supported the conclusion that Jamison possessed
methamphetamine for sale and possessed drug paraphernalia, the superior
court properly denied his Rule 20 motion.

III.   The State’s Objections

¶28            Finally, Jamison argues the superior court erred by sustaining
the State’s objections to two of his questions regarding the chain of custody
during Detective Jones’ testimony.

¶29          We review the superior court’s evidentiary rulings and
conclusion that the evidence has an adequate foundation for an abuse of
discretion. McCray, 218 Ariz. at 256, ¶ 8.

¶30          During Jamison’s cross-examination of Detective Jones, the
following occurred:

       [Defense counsel]: So if the envelope [containing the
       methamphetamine and bag] went to the state crime lab for
       testing, how would you know about that?

       [Detective Jones]: There would be I’m the one that myself [sic]
       or someone else would fill out a DPS lab’s form to request that
       it be tested.

       [Defense counsel]: Okay. And can you tell whether or not
       that happened in this case?

       [Detective Jones]: I did submit a DPS lab’s form for it to be
       tested.

       [Defense counsel]: Okay. So then how does it get from that
       locker to the lab?

       [Detective Jones]: It is transported by Mohave County
       Sheriff’s Office employees.

       [Defense counsel]: Who did that?

       [Detective Jones]:    I’m not sure.    I don’t work in that
       department.

                                     8
                            STATE v. JAMISON
                            Decision of the Court

       [Defense counsel]: Okay. And how would we—how would
       the jury know who did that?

       [Prosecutor]: Objection, relevance and asked and answered.

       [The Court]: I’ll sustain the objection.

       [Defense counsel]: So Detective Jones, one of the things that’s
       important about evidence is maintaining a chain of custody,
       right?

       [Detective Jones]: Correct.

       [Defense counsel]: So do you have a way to tell who all the
       people are who have come into contact with that since you
       put it into the locker?

       [Detective Jones]: In front of me right now, I do not.

       [Defense counsel]: Do you have that somewhere else?

       [Detective Jones]: Again, there is a form that is filled out
       requesting this. And when this evidence is sent, whoever is
       handling the evidence also fills out the evidence form with it.
       So yes, there is a way to track the chain of custody. I don’t
       have that because I’m not the evidence tech.

       [Defense counsel]: Okay. And then if that evidence—have
       you provided that to the counsel for the State, to the County
       Attorney’s Office?

       [Prosecutor]: Objection, relevance.

After a bench conference, the superior court sustained the prosecutor’s
second objection.

¶31            We find no error in the superior court’s rulings sustaining the
State’s objections. The first objected-to question asked how the jury could
know who transported the evidence to the lab, which was information
Detective Jones already said he did not know. The second objected-to
question asked whether Detective Jones had provided a chain of custody
form to the State, but he had already testified that he did not have the form
because he was not the evidence technician. Because neither question
would have produced relevant evidence, the superior court did not abuse
its discretion by sustaining the State’s objections.

                                      9
                   STATE v. JAMISON
                   Decision of the Court

                      CONCLUSION

¶32   For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

                  AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                  FILED: AA

                               10