Opinion
No. 3-545 / 02-2028
Filed August 27, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Bremer County, Jon Stuart Scoles, Judge.
State of Iowa appeals a district court ruling granting Sherry Deen Lewis a post-verdict judgment of acquittal. VACATED AND REMANDED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda Hines, Assistant Attorney General, and Kasey Wadding, County Attorney, for appellant.
Sherry D. Lewis, Ames, pro se for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenahauer, JJ.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Lewis was originally charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and a related drug tax stamp violation. She pled not guilty and was tried on both counts. At the close of all the evidence, Lewis moved for a judgment of acquittal, citing the insufficiency of the State's evidence supporting its possession theories. The trial court denied Lewis's motion and submitted both counts to the jury. The jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts.
Lewis subsequently moved for a new trial and renewed her motion for judgment of acquittal. The trial court's resulting ruling provides:
Turning to the facts in the instant action, the defendant did not have exclusive possession of the residence where the marijuana was found. In fact, the evidence established that the defendant was generally only at the residence on weekends. A co-defendant, Arnold Winning, Jr., pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and failure to affix a drug tax stamp, and testified in Lewis' trial that she was unaware of his activities. Most of the marijuana was seized from Winning's sock drawer.
Based on the authority set forth above, the court concludes that the evidence, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, is not sufficient to establish constructive possession by Lewis of the majority of the marijuana seized. Similarly, the court concludes that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Lewis aided and abetted Winning in his criminal activities.
Therefore, the court concludes that it erred in failing to sustain the motion for directed verdict made by the defendant at the close of the evidence. The court erred in submitting to the jury the charges of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and failure to affix a drug tax stamp. When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, however, the evidence would support a finding that Lewis illegally possessed marijuana. (A small amount of marijuana was found in her dresser in the bedroom.)
Accordingly, the court finds that the defendant's motion for new trial should be sustained and the matter should be reset for trial on the charge of possession of marijuana only.
On appeal the State contends the trial court had no authority to grant Lewis a new trial only upon the lesser-included offense of possession of a controlled substance and, in effect, entering a post-verdict judgment of acquittal on the greater charge of possession with intent to deliver.
II. Scope of Review.
Our review is for errors of law. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4.
III. The Merits.
The State correctly notes that trial courts are without authority to grant a postconviction judgment of acquittal unless the court has reserved its ruling on a defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the evidence. See Iowa R.Crim.P. 2.19( 8)( b); State v. Marti, 290 N.W.2d 570, 582 (Iowa 1980). As noted earlier, the trial judge did not reserve his ruling on Lewis's motion. Accordingly, Lewis's post-verdict relief was limited to arrest of judgment, new trial, or postconviction relief. See Marti, 290 N.W.2d at 582 (citations omitted). Because the trial court ruling effectively acquitted Lewis of possession with intent to deliver after the jury returned a guilty verdict on that count, we hold that the court's ruling granting Lewis a new trial on a lesser offense is void and of no effect. See id. The trial court's ruling is therefore vacated, and we remand to the trial court for further consideration of Lewis's motion for a new trial in accordance with Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.24(2)( b)(1)-(9). We do not retain jurisdiction.