State of Iowa v. Randy Crawford ( 2016 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0771
Filed December 21, 2016
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
RANDY CRAWFORD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton
Ploof, District Associate Judge.
Randy Crawford challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
conviction for possession of a controlled substance. AFFIRMED.
Sharon D. Hallstoos of Hallstoos Law Office, Dubuque, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2
DOYLE, Judge.
Randy Crawford challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Because there is sufficient
evidence to support a finding Crawford possessed the marijuana, we affirm his
conviction.
On November 1, 2015, a police officer walking to his squad car observed
something fall from a passing car. The car stopped, and a male passenger in the
back passenger seat, Crawford, was hanging out the window and looking down.
Crawford opened the door, got out, went back, and retrieved the item that
dropped in the cross-walk. The officer saw the item was a small plastic baggie
with a knot in it. The officer asked, “What do you have there?” Crawford took off
running, and the officer gave chase. The officer caught up with Crawford when
Crawford’s pants fell down around his knees and he tripped and fell. As
Crawford fell, he dropped the baggie. The baggie contained a few grams of
marijuana.
The State charged Crawford with possession of marijuana, first offense, in
violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2015). The case went to trial.
Crawford’s motions for judgment of acquittal challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence were denied by the district court. A jury found Crawford guilty of the
offense. Crawford appeals and raises the same challenges to the sufficiency of
the evidence as he did at trial.
We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction for the correction of errors at law. See State v. Alvarado, 875 N.W.2d
713, 715 (Iowa 2016). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the
3
State to determine whether, viewing the evidence as a whole, a reasonable
person could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. The
verdict will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. See State v. Howse,
875 N.W.2d 684, 688 (Iowa 2016). Evidence is substantial if it could convince a
rational fact finder the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See id.Evidence is not substantial if it only raises suspicion or speculation as to the
defendant’s guilt. See id.“When the State charges a person with possession, the State must prove
the person exercised dominion and control over the contraband, had knowledge
of the contraband’s presence, and had knowledge the material was a narcotic.”
State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 193 (Iowa 2008). Crawford contends the
evidence is insufficient to show he had actual possession of the marijuana—
arguing the case at bar as a constructive possession case. He also argues he
did not know that the plastic baggie contained marijuana.
This is not a constructive possession case. Reviewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the State, a reasonable jury could conclude Crawford had
actual possession of the marijuana. The officer testified that Crawford picked up
the baggie and attempted to flee with it in his hand. Crawford disputes the
officer’s rendition of the facts. In reaching its verdict, the jury made its own
determination of whether the officer’s testimony was credible. See State v.
Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 556 (Iowa 2006). “The jury [was] free to believe or
disbelieve any testimony as it [chose] and to give weight to the evidence as in its
judgment such evidence should receive.” State v. Thornton, 498 N.W.2d 670,
673 (Iowa 1993). “The very function of the jury is to sort out the evidence
4
presented and place credibility where it belongs.” State v. Blair, 347 N.W.2d 416,
420 (Iowa 1984); see also State v. Musser, 721 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Iowa 2006) (“It
is not the province of the court . . . to resolve conflicts in the evidence, to pass
upon the credibility of witnesses, to determine the plausibility of explanations, or
to weigh the evidence; such matters are for the jury.”). In any event, Crawford
admitted at trial that he picked up the bag from the cross-walk and cupped it.
A reasonable jury could also conclude Crawford knew the baggie
contained marijuana. Crawford testified at trial that he knew the baggie
contained marijuana after he picked it up and cupped it. Furthermore, he
testified that after he was arrested and at the police station, he made a statement
to law enforcement:
Yeah, I told dude, I said, man, I didn’t mean to be—you know what
I’m saying, to evade you all. I said, I didn’t mean to—you know
what I’m saying, to run. I said, but I just seen the weed—the
marijuana on the ground, man. I said, you know what I’m saying?
It wasn’t mine.
On cross-examination, Crawford was asked: “Now, you said that you saw this
baggie laying on the ground, and you told us that it was marijuana, right?”
Crawford responded, “Right.” Crawford admitted he picked up the baggie, put it
in his hand, and then ran from the police. He claimed that he dropped the baggie
“because the police was right there so, you know, when I picked it up and I
looked it, and I dropped it. I’m like, uh-huh, because I didn’t want to have it.”
We conclude sufficient evidence supports the jury verdict finding Crawford
guilty of possession of marijuana. We therefore affirm his conviction and
sentence.
AFFIRMED.