From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Morris

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three
Oct 23, 2007
141 Wn. App. 1015 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)

Opinion

No. 25863-7-III.

October 23, 2007.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 06-1-03377-0, Kathleen M. O'Connor, J., entered January 4, 2007.


Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, C.J., concurred in by Schultheis and Brown, JJ.


This appeal follows Stepney Morris's conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Mr. Morris argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction based on constructive possession. We conclude the evidence is sufficient and therefore affirm his conviction.

FACTS

Deputy Mark Brownell and Deputy Jeremy Howe stopped Mark Wilson because his driver's license was suspended. Stepney Morris was a passenger in Mr. Wilson's car. He was not wearing a seatbelt and there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest.

Deputy Howe arrested Mr. Morris, searched and handcuffed him, and placed him in Sergeant Dale Goldman's patrol vehicle. They talked to Mr. Wilson and then retrieved Mr. Morris from Sergeant Goldman's car. A baggie of crack cocaine was found where Mr. Morris's feet had been. The State charged Mr. Morris with possession of cocaine.

Sergeant Goldman searched his patrol car for any malfunctioning equipment, debris in the car, and/or any damage when he began his shift. He had arrested someone before this incident. And he searched the car after that person was removed from the back seat. He did not find anything in the back seat during either search.

Mr. Morris moved to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence. He argued that there was nothing more than his mere proximity to the drugs, and that he did not have dominion and control over the car. The court denied the motion to dismiss.

The jury found Mr. Morris guilty of the crime of possession of a controlled substance as charged.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Morris argues that he did not have constructive possession of the cocaine because he did not have dominion and control of the car.

The question, then, is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could find that each element of the offense has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221-22, 616 P.2d 628 (1980). We draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the State. State v. Lopez, 79 Wn. App. 755, 768, 904 P.2d 1179 (1995). Circumstantial evidence is just as reliable as direct evidence. State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 38, 941 P.2d 1102 (1997). We defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence. State v. Walton, 64 Wn. App. 410, 415-16, 824 P.2d 533 (1992).

Constructive possession requires that the defendant have dominion and control over the contraband or the premises where the contraband is found. State v. Callahan, 77 Wn.2d 27, 30-31, 459 P.2d 400 (1969). Determining whether there is constructive possession requires examination of the "totality of the situation." State v. Partin, 88 Wn.2d 899, 906, 567 P.2d 1136 (1977).

Mr. Morris relies on State v. Spruell for the proposition that mere proximity to the drugs is not enough to support a finding of constructive possession. He asserts that the evidence must enable the trier of fact to infer dominion and control. Spruell, 57 Wn. App. at 388-89. He is correct. No single factor is dispositive in determining dominion and control. State v. Collins, 76 Wn. App. 496, 501, 886 P.2d 243 (1995). The totality of the circumstances must be considered. Id.

State v. Spruell, 57 Wn. App. 383, 388-89, 788 P.2d 21 (1990).

The ability to reduce an object to actual possession is an aspect of dominion and control. State v. Turner, 103 Wn. App. 515, 521, 13 P.3d 234 (2000). "Whether a passenger's occupancy of a particular part of an automobile would constitute dominion and control of either the drugs or the area in which they are found would depend upon the particular facts in each case." State v. Mathews, 4 Wn. App. 653, 656, 484 P.2d 942 (1971). Proximity must be coupled with other circumstances linking the defendant to the drugs. Id. at 658.

Here, there is more than just proximity. Sergeant Goldman searched the car before seizing Mr. Morris and found the car clean. The officers found cocaine after Mr. Morris was removed from the vehicle. The police search of him was only cursory before they put him in the car. No one else was in the vehicle during the time Mr. Morris was there.

This is sufficient evidence to support Mr. Morris's conviction; therefore, we affirm.

A majority of the panel has determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.

WE CONCUR:

SCHULTHEIS, J.

BROWN, J.


Summaries of

State v. Morris

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three
Oct 23, 2007
141 Wn. App. 1015 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)
Case details for

State v. Morris

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. STEPNEY DYLAN MORRIS, Appellant

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three

Date published: Oct 23, 2007

Citations

141 Wn. App. 1015 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)
141 Wash. App. 1015