Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
A Deputy observed D pass through a flashing yellow light without slowing down. The Deputy also saw D's truck go off the road while making a right-hand turn and then weave off the roadway onto the grassy shoulder three times. D was stopped. The Deputy smelled alcohol and observed that D's eyes were bloodshot and D's speech was slurred. D was alone in the truck. After field sobriety tests, D was arrested for DUI. for driving under the influence. Deputies searched the truck and found a 'softball' wrapped in black electrical tape underneath the passenger's seat. D said he did not know what the item was, that he had not seen it before, and had not known that it was in the truck. He also stated that others had access to the truck. Tests indicated that the off-white powder contained within the item was a mixture containing methamphetamine and a cutting agent. D was charged by information with trafficking in methamphetamine, driving under the influence, and obstructing or resisting an officer without violence. D denied using drugs and did not put the tape-covered item in the truck, know it was there, or know what it contained. D testified that his truck had been stolen on May 31, from a shop where he had taken it. The truck was recovered the following Monday in a dirty condition and containing items that did not belong to D. After recovering the truck, he returned it to the shop for the installation of a stereo. When he later picked up the truck, it was clean. D moved for a judgment of acquittal on the trafficking charge. D also objected to the standard jury instruction that permitted the jury to infer or assume knowledge of the presence of the methamphetamine based on exclusive possession. The trial court overruled the objection. The trial court instructed: If a thing is in a place over which the person does not have control, in order to establish constructive possession, the State must prove the person has control over the thing, knowledge of the thing which was in the person's presence, and the knowledge of the illicit nature of the thing. The lesser included offense of simple possession instruction omitted any reference to the requirement that the defendant have knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance but instructed that the 'definition of possession . . . applies to the lesser charge as it did to the greater charge.' The jury submitted a question to the court: 'What is the difference between trafficking and possession of methamphetamine?' The court then reread the instructions on possession and trafficking, but not the instructions concerning actual and constructive possession. D was convicted of the lessor included charge and appealed. The district court then concluded that the instruction given was clearly inadequate and erroneous. The district found that D had not properly preserved the error and that the error was not a fundamental. D appealed, and the court certified its opinion as in conflict with Goodman, which holds that when a defendant denies knowledge of the presence of an illegal substance, he or she automatically places into dispute any knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co