Opinion
No. 5-582 / 04-1609
Filed August 17, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, James D. Scott, Judge.
Steven Ronald Hamel appeals from his conviction for possession of methamphetamine, enhanced. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Patricia Reynolds, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa O'Rourke, County Attorney, and Coleman McAllister, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Zimmer, JJ., Huitink, P.J., takes no part.
Steven Ronald Hamel appeals from his conviction for possession of methamphetamine, enhanced, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2003). He maintains the district court erred in concluding his admissions were sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of the arresting police officer. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
On the morning of March 26, 2004, Hawarden police chief Mike DeBruin observed Steven Hamel, whom he knew to be wanted under a federal warrant, standing outside a convenience store. As DeBruin approached to arrest him, Hamel quickly retreated inside to the convenience store's restroom. DeBruin followed Hamel and placed him under arrest.
Before patting Hamel down, DeBruin asked Hamel whether he had any weapons or needles. Hamel admitted that he had a "tooter" in his back pocket. DeBruin then reached into Hamel's back pocket and withdrew a five-inch long green straw that contained a white residue. He then patted down Hamel and discovered a baggie containing what he believed to be methamphetamine and a coffee filter with a residue from Hamel's front pocket. Hamel informed DeBruin that the baggie and filter did, in fact, contain methamphetamine, and that he had intended to flush them down the toilet in the convenience store's restroom.
Based on this incident, the State charged Hamel with possession of methamphetamine, enhanced, due to two prior convictions. Following a bench trial, the district court found him guilty as charged, and sentenced him to a prison term not to exceed five years.
Hamel appeals, contending the district court erred in concluding his admissions were sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of the arresting police officer. In particular, he claims that absent the introduction of the results of any chemical analysis, there was "no conclusive proof that the substances in question were methamphetamine. . . ." We review this claim for errors at law. See State v. Bugely, 562 N.W.2d 173, 176 (Iowa 1997).
Corroboration.
Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.21(4) provides that a defendant's confession, "unless made in open court, will not warrant a conviction, unless accompanied with other proof that the defendant committed the offense." "Corroboration need not be strong nor need it go to the whole of the case so long as it confirms some material fact connecting the defendant with the crime." State v. Liggins, 524 N.W.2d 181, 187 (Iowa 1994).
Initially, we note that the identity of a substance as an illegal drug may be proved by circumstantial evidence. In re C.T., 521 N.W.2d 754, 757 (Iowa 1994) (citing United States v. Moskowitz, 888 F.2d 223, 229 (2d Cir. 1989)). Further, the statute under which Hamel was convicted does not require testing of the purported drug as a prerequisite to conviction of the crime. Thus, the absence of any chemical analysis is not fatal to Hamel's conviction.
At trial DeBruin related his significant history in the identification of methamphetamine and other narcotic drugs, having attended several methamphetamine schools, being a member of the Northwest Iowa Drug Task Force, and being employed in law enforcement for fourteen years. DeBruin then testified that the straw, which contained white residue and which was found in Hamel's pocket, is typically used to ingest illegal drugs. He further testified that the plastic baggie, in which a white substance was also found, is an item commonly used to package methamphetamine. He finally noted that the coffee filter, which contained a white powder as well, is consistent with an item that has been used to manufacture methamphetamine. The white powder found in those items, in DeBruin's opinion, was methamphetamine.
Furthermore, when Hamel noticed DeBruin approaching in his marked police vehicle and uniform, he ran into the convenience store and entered the restroom. When DeBruin later arrested him in the restroom, Hamel admitted he was trying to get rid of the methamphetamine in the toilet. We believe Hamel's attempted flight upon observing a police officer is probative and serves as further corroboration to Hamel's admissions. See State v. Ash, 244 N.W.2d 812, 816 (Iowa 1976) ("Evidence of flight may be considered in determining guilt or innocence.").
In conclusion, we believe sufficient corroboration exists to support the conclusion that the substance in question found on the various items and drug paraphernalia on Hamel's person was methamphetamine. Officer DeBruin's testimony about his observations and his informed opinions, as well as Hamel's attempted flight to dispose of the items, sufficiently corroborates Hamel's admissions to the material facts of this crime. See Liggins, 524 N.W.2d at 187. We therefore affirm the conviction.