Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-11495 No. 6188
05-27-2015
CHARLES ANTHONY LANE JR., Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Appearances: Josie Garton, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Elizabeth Slattery, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions, Anchorage, and Michael C. Geraghty, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this Court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding authority for any proposition of law. Trial Court No. 2NO-11-744 CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from the Superior Court, Second Judicial District, Nome, Fred Torrisi, Judge. Appearances: Josie Garton, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Elizabeth Slattery, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions, Anchorage, and Michael C. Geraghty, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee. Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Hanley, District Court Judge. PER CURIAM.
Sitting by assignment made pursuant to Article IV, Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution and Administrative Rule 24(d).
Charles Anthony Lane Jr. was convicted of importing liquor into a local option area and fourth-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance after his fingerprints were found inside a package containing alcohol and 8.8 ounces of marijuana that was sent from Anchorage (where Lane's son lived) to Gambell, a local option area.
AS 04.11.499(a); AS 04.16.200(e)(1).
AS 11.71.040(a)(2); AS 11.71.040(a)(3)(F).
On appeal, Lane argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. For the reasons explained here, we conclude that the evidence at trial was legally sufficient. We therefore affirm Lane's convictions.
Underlying facts
During a routine mail inspection, Alaska State Trooper James Sears identified a Gambell-bound package as potentially suspicious. Trooper Sears viewed the package as potentially suspicious because (1) its return address identified the sender as "Express Yourself," an Anchorage expediting company — but, despite coming from a business, the return address was written in felt pen, rather than printed on a label; (2) the recipient's name was misspelled; and (3) the certification that the box did not contain alcohol was signed by an individual identified as "Junky Lane."
Trooper Sears telephoned the intended recipient of the package, Orlin Booshu, the husband of the Gambell postmistress, and received permission to open the package. Inside the package, the trooper found nine 750-milliliter plastic bottles of alcohol taped together into three groups of three bottles. He also found a stockpot that appeared to be in its original packaging — the stockpot was inside a large cardboard box that was taped shut, and the stockpot itself was wrapped in a clear plastic bag printed with factory warnings. Inside the stockpot was a white kitchen trash bag containing two plastic Ziploc bags full of a leafy green material, that was subsequently identified as 8.8 ounces of marijuana.
The Alaska Crime Lab was able to identify sixteen fingerprints found inside the package. Four of the fingerprints belonged to Charles Lane. Two of these fingerprints were found on an alcohol bottle; the other two were found on the inner packaging of the stockpot. The remaining twelve fingerprints belonged to Lane's son, Donald. Donald's fingerprints were found on the alcohol bottles, on the tape used to tape the alcohol bottles together, and on the inner plastic packaging.
Lane was charged with two counts of fourth-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance and one count of importing liquor into a local option area.
At trial, the jury heard evidence about the suspicious nature of the package, the amount of marijuana found inside the package, and the fingerprint identifications. In addition, the jury heard testimony from the Gambell postmistress (the wife of the intended recipient on the package), who testified that she had seen other suspicious packages like this one — with handwritten "Express Yourself" return labels — and that these packages sometimes smelled overtly of marijuana. The postmistress also testified that the night after these packages would arrive, there would be increased four-wheeler and snowmachine activity at Lane's house in Gambell. She stated (without objection) that this kind of activity happened when someone was selling marijuana or alcohol.
The jury convicted Lane on all three counts. At sentencing, the trial court merged the two fourth-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance convictions and sentenced Lane to a composite sentence of 51 months and 20 days, and a $1,500 fine.
This appeal followed.
Why we conclude that Lane's convictions are supported by sufficient evidence
On appeal, Lane argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. He asserts that the fingerprints on the alcohol bottles showed that he touched the alcohol bottles at some point in time, but did not prove that he knowingly sent an alcoholic beverage into a local option community. Lane likewise asserts that the fingerprints on the stockpot packaging showed that he handled the stockpot at some point in time, but did not prove that he was aware that the stockpot contained marijuana.
When we review a claim of legal insufficiency, we must view the evidence (and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence) in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict; we then determine whether a fair-minded juror could reasonably find that the evidence was proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
See Simpson v. State, 877 P.2d 1319, 1320 (Alaska App. 1994).
--------
Viewing the evidence in this case in that light, we conclude that legally sufficient evidence supports Lane's convictions. Contrary to Lane's characterization of the evidence on appeal, the evidence in the case was not limited to just the fingerprint evidence; the jury also heard evidence that linked the suspicious package to Lane and his residence, including the name "Junky Lane," and the postmistress's testimony about the arrival of other similar suspicious packages and the corresponding suspicious activity at Lane's home. In addition, as the prosecutor pointed out, the exact placement of the fingerprint evidence was particularly incriminating, suggesting that Lane had held the alcohol bottles while his son taped them and that Lane had been directly involved in the repackaging of the stockpot containing the marijuana to make it look as though the stockpot was still in its original factory packaging. Thus, given the totality of the evidence the jury heard — and with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the jury's verdicts — we conclude that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support Lane's convictions.
Conclusion
We AFFIRM the judgment of the superior court.