Opinion
No. 37342-4-II.
March 24, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 07-1-01666-0, John F. Nichols, J., entered January 17, 2008.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Penoyar, J., concurred in by Van Deren, C.J., and QuinnBrintnall, J.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Bill Charles Brown appeals his unlawful possession of methamphetamine conviction, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Specifically, he argues that a small baggie of methamphetamine found near the site of his arrest was not sufficiently linked to him to support the jury's verdict. We affirm.
Brown filed a statement of additional grounds for review (SAG), pointing out two date errors in his attorney's brief. The errors have no effect on this appeal.
A commissioner of this court reviewed the matter pursuant to RAP 18.14 and referred it to a panel of judges.
FACTS
On September 18, 2007, City of Vancouver Police Officer Eric McCaleb responded to a call about Brown, a wanted person, sighted at the bus mall at 7th and Main. Brown fled when Officer McCaleb stopped his car. It was approximately 6:00 p.m., and still light outside.
Officer McCaleb pursued Brown. As they ran under a large Albina Fuel Company sign, Brown reached into his left front pants pocket and threw "something" out. Report of Proceedings (RP) at 27. McCaleb was four to six feet behind him, but could not see what it was. He caught up to Brown in less than a block and arrested and searched him, finding nothing but personal items. He put Brown in his patrol car and returned to the Albina sign. Underneath the sign, he found a small plastic baggie containing what proved to be methamphetamine. He searched the general area, but found nothing else.
Brown insisted at trial, that he had not thrown anything out of his pocket. He said that he had his right hand in his pocket, holding up his pants, but he never put his left hand in his pocket. The jury found him guilty as charged, and Brown appeals.
ANALYSIS
Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it would permit any rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). An insufficiency claim admits the truth of the State's evidence and requires that all reasonable inferences be drawn in the State's favor and interpreted most strongly against the defendant. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201. Circumstantial evidence is equally as reliable as direct evidence. State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99 (1980). Credibility determinations are for the trier of fact and are not subject to appellate review. State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990).
Unlawful possession of methamphetamine has no mens rea requirement. See RCW 69.50.4013(1); State v. Eaton, 143 Wn. App. 155, 160, 177 P.3d 157 (2008). The State simply bears the burden of proving that the substance in question is a controlled substance and that the defendant had possession of it. Eaton, 143 Wn. App. at 160. Possession can be actual or constructive. State v. Staley, 123 Wn.2d 794, 798, 872 P.2d 502 (1994). Actual possession means that the goods were in the personal custody of the defendant; constructive possession means that the goods were not in actual, physical possession, but the defendant had dominion and control over them. Staley, 123 Wn.2d at 798.
Brown bases his argument on constructive possession, arguing that the State could not establish that he had dominion and control over drugs that were a block away at the time of his arrest. That is certainly true. This conviction must be based on actual possession. If the jury believed that Brown dropped the drugs that Officer McCaleb found, they could find that he had actual possession of them.
Actual possession, like any other crime, can be proven by circumstantial evidence. State v. DuPont, 14 Wn. App. 22, 25, 538 P.2d 823 (1975). Officer McCaleb testified that Brown dropped something under the Albina sign. All he found after a search of that area was the baggie of methamphetamine. The jury could reasonably infer from that evidence that the baggie of methamphetamine was what Brown dropped.
In DuPont, a police officer was talking to the defendant when he heard someone drop keys and saw a piece of paper fall to the floor. He investigated and found cocaine and heroin inside a tightly folded $20 bill. The packet and the keys were near the defendant's feet, and the keys operated the defendant's vehicle. 14 Wn. App. at 22.
We affirm.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
VAN DEREN, C.J. and QUINN-BRINTNALL, J., concur.