Opinion
No. 06-1771.
November 15, 2007.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, J. Hobart Darbyshire, Judge.
The defendant appeals from the judgement and sentence entered upon his conviction of possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver contending there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. AFFIRMED.
Kyle D. Williamson of Williamson Law Office and Eric C. Syverud, Davenport, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda J. Hines, Assistant County Attorney, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Kelly Cunningham, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
[EDITORS' NOTE: THE PUBLICATION STATUS OF THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED. THE PRECEDENTIAL VALUE OF CASES WHICH ARE NOT YET PUBLISHED IS GOVERNED BY IOWA CT. R. 6.14 (5).]
Edward Algenerio Campbell appeals from the judgement and sentence entered upon his conviction of possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(c)(3) (2005) following a bench trial. He contends there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We review his claim for errors at law. State v. Rohm, 609 N.W.2d 504, 509 (Iowa 2000). We will uphold a finding of guilt if substantial evidence supports the verdict. Id. "Substantial evidence is evidence upon which a rational finder of fact could find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Id.
In order to be convicted, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Campbell possessed crack cocaine, he knew the substance he possessed was crack cocaine, and he delivered the crack cocaine. Campbell was observed by the tactical operations unit of the Davenport Police Department hanging around in an area known for drugs and prostitution. He was openly counting money and exhibiting behavior typical of a drug dealer. After approximately thirty minutes, another man signaled to Campbell and brought over two women, Latasha Cook and Robin Cunningham. This behavior is typical of one "brokering" a drug transaction. Campbell and the women appeared nervous as they looked up and down the street. Campbell then removed white objects from his mouth and handed one to Cook in exchange for what appeared to be money. When officers approached Campbell, he appeared to swallow. No crack cocaine was found on Campbell or Cook, but Cunningham possessed crack cocaine. We conclude there is substantial evidence for the trial court to find Campbell guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Campbell cites several instances of allegedly contradictory testimony offered at trial. The credibility of witnesses is for the factfinder to decide except for those rare circumstances where the testimony is absurd, impossible, or self-contradictory. State v. Kostman, 585 N.W.2d 209, 211 (Iowa 1998). None of the examples he cites fall under this category. Accordingly, we affirm.