From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Hamilton

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Feb 6, 2002
No. 1-912 / 01-0446 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2002)

Opinion

No. 1-912 / 01-0446.

Filed February 6, 2002.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Greene County, JOEL E. SWANSON and GARY L. MCMININEE, Judges.

Alexander Hamilton appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of the offenses of manufacturing or aiding and abetting in the manufacture of methamphetamine, in violation of Iowa Code sections 124.401(1)(c) and 1124.401C (1999) and possession of marijuana in violation of section 124.401(6). AFFIRMED.

Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, David Arthur Adams, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, and Nicola Martino, County Attorney, for Appellee.

Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and MAHAN and HECHT, JJ.


The defendant-appellant, Alexander Hamilton, appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of the offenses of manufacturing or aiding and abetting in the manufacture of methamphetamine, in violation of Iowa Code sections 124.401(1)(c) and 1124.401C (1999) and possession of marijuana in violation of section 124.401(6). He claims there was insufficient evidence he either participated or aided and abetted in the manufacture of methamphetamine. He also contends the court erred in allowing (1) testimony which exceeded the minutes of testimony and (2) evidence of prior bad acts. Hamilton also claims trial counsel was ineffective. We affirm.

Hamilton lived with Pamela Schirmbeck and her children in one half of a duplex in Jefferson. Daniel Baugh lived in the other half of the duplex. In May 2000 while on patrol, Officer Slagle detected the odor of ether coming from the duplex. Slagle consulted Captain Fister of the Jefferson Police Department. The two drove by the duplex and Fister confirmed that he too smelled ether. This information was relayed to Officer Ballantine who applied for a search warrant for the duplex. While waiting for the warrant, Captain Fister watched the building. During a period of about four hours in the evening, he observed various people coming to and going from the duplex, including Hamilton, who was in and out of both sides of the duplex. A short time after dark, officers from the Jefferson Police Department, the Iowa State Patrol, Division of Narcotics Enforcement, and the D.C.I. laboratory executed the search warrant. Officers searched Baugh's residence, Hamilton's residence, and the basement under Hamilton's side of the duplex.

In Baugh's residence, the search team discovered various items associated with the manufacture and use of methamphetamine. They also found a bag of green plant material and a hand-rolled cigarette, both of which were confirmed by laboratory tests to be marijuana. In the basement, officers discovered equipment, supplies, and materials associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine. In the unit where Hamilton and Schirmbeck lived the police found drug paraphernalia and items used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The police also found a quantity of marijuana.

In June 2000 the State filed a multi-count, joint trial information charging Baugh and Hamilton with manufacturing or aiding and abetting in the manufacture of methamphetamine, and possession of marijuana. Baugh pled guilty and testified at Hamilton's trial.

During the trial the State, over defense objections, presented testimony from Captain Fister concerning his observation of the duplex in the four hours before executing the search warrant. Defense counsel argued the testimony was beyond the scope of the minutes of testimony, which stated in part Fister would testify, "regarding his observations of the scene of the search." The court also allowed testimony concerning Hamilton's prior drug use over defense objections concerning its relevance. The jury found Hamilton guilty of both charges. The court imposed concurrent sentences.

On appeal, Hamilton claims there was not sufficient evidence he manufactured or aided and abetted in the manufacture of methamphetamine. He contends the court erred in allowing Captain Fister's testimony concerning his observation of the scene before the search warrant was executed and in allowing testimony concerning Hamilton's prior drug use. Hamilton also argues defense counsel was ineffective in failing to make an appropriate objection to the testimony concerning his prior drug use.

Sufficiency of the evidence. Our scope of review on an appeal from a criminal conviction is the same whether the court or a jury is the fact finder. State v. Hall, 287 N.W.2d 564, 565 (Iowa 1980). We will uphold a verdict under a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge if it is supported by substantial evidence. State v. Chang, 587 N.W.2d 459, 461-62 (Iowa 1998). Substantial evidence means such evidence as could convince a rational trier of fact that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Casady, 597 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Iowa 1999). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, including all legitimate inferences that may be deduced from the evidence. State v. Thomas, 561 N.W.2d 37, 39 (Iowa 1997). Direct and circumstantial evidence are equally probative, but the inferences to be drawn from the proof in a criminal case must "raise a fair inference of guilt as to each essential element of the crime." State v. Casady, 491 N.W.2d 782, 787 (Iowa 1992). The evidence "must do more than raise suspicion, speculation, or conjecture." State v. LaPointe, 418 N.W.2d 49, 51 (Iowa 1988).

Hamilton claims there was no evidence he had any part in the manufacture or delivery of methamphetamine or that he even had knowledge of Baugh's manufacturing activities. He was convicted of aiding or abetting. One who aids and abets another in a crime "shall be charged, tried and punished" as a principal. Iowa Code § 703.1 (1999). The State must prove Hamilton "assented to or lent countenance and approval to the criminal act either by active participation in it or by some manner encouraging it prior to or at the time of its commission." See Wilker v. Wilker, 630 N.W.2d 590, 597 (Iowa 2001). The State also must show Hamilton knew of Baugh's criminal activities. See State v. Tangie, 616 N.W.2d 564, 574 (Iowa 2000). Knowledge of the crime or proximity to the crime scene with circumstantial evidence such as "presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense is committed," may be enough to infer a defendant's participation in the crime. Id. (quoting State v. Miles, 346 N.W.2d 517, 520 (Iowa 1984)). Associating oneself with the criminal venture by accommodating a principal's criminal activities will support an aiding and abetting conviction. State v. Galvan, 297 N.W.2d 344, 349 (Iowa 1980).

Hamilton allowed Baugh to stay in the vacant unit of the duplex without cost. He allowed Baugh access to and use of the basement. Baugh entered the basement through Hamilton's unit. The police found items related to the manufacture of methamphetamine in Hamilton's unit and in the basement. Hamilton took steps to block the drug-manufacturing odor emanating from the basement. He was observed going in and out of Baugh's unit, talking on his cellular phone, and associating with others whose actions could give rise to an inference they were purchasing drugs from Baugh. Hamilton's "presence, companionship, and conduct" could allow the finder of fact to infer he was aiding and abetting Baugh's criminal activities. We conclude substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict Hamilton aided and abetted Baugh's manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine.

Captain Fister's testimony. Between about 5:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m., Captain Fister observed the duplex while waiting for the requested search warrant. The minutes of testimony stated he would testify about his "observations of the scene of the search." At trial, defense counsel objected to Fister's testimony concerning what he observed during the four hours before execution of the search warrant as being beyond the scope of the minutes of testimony. The court allowed the testimony.

We review for an abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett, 503 N.W.2d 42, 46 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). To show an abuse of discretion, one must show that the court exercised its discretion "on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable." Id. (quoting Weeks v. Burnor, 132 Vt. 603, 326 A.2d 138, 140 (1974)). Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(3) requires the State to file minutes of testimony with the trial information. Iowa R. Crim. P. 5(3). The minutes must provide "a full and fair statement of the witness' expected testimony." Id. The purpose of the rule is to provide an accused meaningful information from which a defense may be prepared. State v. Wells, 522 N.W.2d 304, 307 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). The "full and fair statement" standard mandates the State to alert the defendant to the source and nature of the testimony, and to place the defendant on notice of the need for further investigation of the particulars of the expected testimony. State v. Lord, 341 N.W.2d 741, 743 (Iowa 1983).

The minutes of testimony alerted Hamilton that Fister had observed the scene of the search, the duplex. Further inquiry would have revealed the time frame during which Fister observed the scene and the details of his observations. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Captain Fister's testimony as being within the scope of the minutes of testimony.

Evidence of prior drug use. Hamilton contends the trial court improperly allowed testimony of his use of drugs on prior occasions. See Iowa R. Evid. 404(b). We note the testimony complained of concerning marijuana does not indicate Hamilton used it other than on the date he was arrested. Rather, it indicates only that Ms. Sayre, the witness, had used marijuana previously at Hamilton's residence. We are left, therefore, only with this single exchange:

Q. Had the Defendant ever used methamphetamine in your presence?

A. It's occasional, not often, but yes. (Intervening objection omitted).

Hamilton claims the testimony is inadmissible under Iowa Rule of Evidence 404(b). The objection based on relevance did not preserve this issue for review. See State v. Guess, 223 N.W.2d 214, 216 (Iowa 1974); State v. Evans, 193 N.W.2d 515, 518 (Iowa 1972).

Ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, Hamilton claims his trial counsel was ineffective if we determine, as we have, that the relevance objection to the testimony concerning his prior drug use did not preserve his claim under Iowa Rule of Evidence 404(b). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must show that his attorney's performance fell outside a normal range of competency and that the deficient performance so prejudiced him as to give rise to the reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See State v. McKettrick, 480 N.W.2d 52, 55 (Iowa 1992); Schertz v. State, 380 N.W.2d 404, 412 (Iowa 1985). We may affirm if he fails to prove prejudice without deciding whether there was a failure of duty. State v. Hoeck, 547 N.W.2d 852, 863 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). We find no reasonable probability the outcome of the trial would have been different if the objection to the testimony had also raised an issue under Iowa Rule of Evidence 404(b).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

State v. Hamilton

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Feb 6, 2002
No. 1-912 / 01-0446 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2002)
Case details for

State v. Hamilton

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEXANDER J. HAMILTON…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Feb 6, 2002

Citations

No. 1-912 / 01-0446 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2002)