Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2333-12T4
06-19-2014
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHARLES L. CASTLEBERRY, a/k/a CHARLES CASTELBERRTY, Defendant-Appellant.
Afonso Baker & Archie, P.C., attorneys for appellant (Troy A. Archie and Terrell Ratliff, on the brief). Warren W. Faulk, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Natalie A. Schmid Drummond, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Alvarez and Higbee.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 11-05-01258.
Afonso Baker & Archie, P.C., attorneys for appellant (Troy A. Archie and Terrell Ratliff, on the brief).
Warren W. Faulk, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Natalie A. Schmid Drummond, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Charles Castleberry appeals his judgment of conviction dated December 12, 2012. For the reasons stated below, we affirm defendant's conviction.
A Camden County grand jury indicted defendant on counts charging unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance and unlawful possession of controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(3) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1). Following the conclusion of the State's case, defendant moved for judgment of acquittal as to count two, possession with intent to distribute, arguing that the State failed to prove that defendant knowingly and purposely possessed marijuana with the intent to distribute. The trial court denied defendant's motion. Defendant renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of his case. The trial court again denied defendant's motion. The jury found defendant guilty of both counts.
The single point raised on appeal is as follows:
POINT 1: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT DEFENDANT'S CONVICTIONS DUE TO A LACK OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE PACKAGES
On October 19, 2010, Inspector Brian Shannon, a federal agent with the United States Postal Inspection Services, was assigned to a routine narcotics inspection at the Philadelphia Airport when he came across two suspicious packages. The first package was addressed to a house on Garfield Avenue in New Jersey, and the second package to a house on Roosevelt Drive in New Jersey. Both packages weighed about seventeen pounds each, and had been mailed the day before on October 18, 2010.
Inspector Shannon found these packages suspicious because both had Portland, Oregon return addresses but the shipping label indicated that the packages had been mailed from Phoenix, Arizona. When postal inspectors checked the return addresses against their law enforcement database, the addresses came back as nonexistent. Inspector Shannon found that each package contained a green leafy substance hidden within an orange Home Depot tub which tested positive for marijuana.
The Cherry Hill Police Department and the Postal Inspections Services worked together to conduct a controlled delivery of the packages. The packages were originally scheduled to be delivered on October 19, 2010, but were delivered on October 20, 2010. The Garfield Avenue address was a vacant home for sale, while the Roosevelt Drive address was an unoccupied house that was under construction. Postal Inspection Services had received previous information that parcels containing contraband were being dropped off and picked up at vacant or unoccupied homes.
The controlled delivery took place on October 20, 2010. Inspector McGovern began surveillance of the Garfield address just after 11:00 a.m. Within fifteen minutes, Inspector McGovern observed defendant's silver Mercury Mountaineer SUV traveling east down Garfield Avenue toward his undercover vehicle. Defendant's SUV slowed down, drove slowly past the Garfield house, and continued to drive around the block five times prior to the package being delivered.
About five to ten minutes after the package was delivered, defendant's SUV again approached the house. He exited the SUV, walked to the doorstep, and picked up the package. Defendant then backed out of the driveway and headed west on Garfield Avenue towards Roosevelt Drive.
An undercover postal inspector had already delivered the second package to the Roosevelt Drive address when defendant arrived. He exited the SUV, walked up to the step, retrieved the second package, and returned to his vehicle. At that point, Detective Glatz instructed all personnel to move in.
When unmarked police vehicles pulled up behind defendant's SUV in an attempt to box him in, he put his SUV in reverse, and backed out of the driveway and around the police vehicles. Defendant continued to drive at approximately 40 m.p.h. in reverse down Roosevelt Drive for two city blocks. He made a backwards right turn onto Church Street, attempted to put his SUV in drive, and crashed into a police vehicle before coming to a stop.
At trial, Camden County Prosecutor's Office Investigator Jeffrey Dunlap, testified as the State's expert in the field of drug distribution, including how drugs are packaged, priced, and distributed. He explained that when drugs are shipped via mail carrier, certain indicators raise the suspicion that something illegal may be inside the package. These include a package being shipped from one area of the country to another at an expedited rate, handwritten labels, and delivery to a vacant or unoccupied house. Investigator Dunlap also testified that based on his training and experience, twenty-eight pounds of marijuana could only be intended for distribution, because it was such a large amount.
When deciding a motion for acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence, the critical inquiry is
whether, viewing the State's evidence in its entirety, be that evidence direct or circumstantial, and giving the State the benefit of all its favorable testimony as well as of the favorable inferences which reasonably could be drawn therefrom, a reasonable jury could find guilt of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt."This test governs not only the trial judge's consideration of the motion, but also appellate review of his ruling." State v. Moffa, 42 N.J. 258, 263 (1964).
[State v. Reyes, 50 N.J. 454, 459 (1967).]
Applying that standard to the present case, we conclude the State presented more than sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was guilty of fourth degree possession and first degree possession with intent to distribute. Possession, as used in our criminal statutes, indicates "'a knowing, intentional control of a designated thing, accompanied by a knowledge of its character.'" State v. Pena, 178 N.J. 297, 305 (2004) (emphasis in original) (quoting State v. Pena, 301 N.J. Super. 158, 162 (App. Div. 1997), certif. denied, 151 N.J. 465 (1997)). Therefore, simply accepting a package by itself "cannot yield an inference of knowledge by the recipient of its contents." State v. Richards, 155 N.J. Super. 106, 113 (App. Div. 1978). However, other surrounding circumstances may permit an inference that defendant knew what was in the package and intended to assert control over it. Id. at 113-14.
The circumstances surrounding defendant's possession of the marijuana support an inference that defendant knew he possessed a controlled dangerous substance and intended to exercise control over it. These include driving from Philadelphia to New Jersey to retrieve packages from vacant or unoccupied homes, suspiciously circling the block several times prior to the packages being delivered, and driving in reverse for two blocks to avoid police.
Considering all the attendant circumstances, and giving the State the benefit of all favorable testimony and favorable inferences which reasonably could be drawn therefrom, a reasonable jury could find that defendant knew what was in the package and was therefore guilty of both counts beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we affirm defendant's conviction.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPEALATE DIVISION