State Of Washington v. James Edward Henderson ( 2016 )

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
November 22, 2016
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 47844-7-II
Respondent,
v.
JAMES EDWARD HENDERSON, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant,
MELNICK, J. – James Edward Henderson appeals his unlawful possession of a controlled
substance (cocaine) conviction. He contends both prosecutorial misconduct and instructional error
denied him a fair trial. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
During the course of a drug investigation, Lakewood Police Department detective Ryan
Larson obtained a search warrant for Henderson’s home. Henderson shared the home with his
daughter. While executing the search warrant, Henderson told Officer Larson there were both
marijuana and crack cocaine in his residence. Specifically, Henderson stated that there was crack
cocaine in his kitchen on a plate above the stove. Officers located the crack cocaine exactly where
Henderson said it would be. Officers also located a small, digital scale next to the plate; another
small scale; and $110 in cash on Henderson.
47844-7-II
The State charged Henderson with unlawful possession of a controlled substance (cocaine)
with intent to deliver.1 At trial, the court instructed the jury that the State “has the burden of
proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 21. The
court continued, “A reasonable doubt is one for which a reason exists and may arise from the
evidence or lack of evidence. . . . If, from such consideration, you have an abiding belief in the
truth of the charge, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.” CP at 21. Henderson objected
to this instruction, arguing, “Abiding belief is somewhat of an ambiguous statement, and it could
have the likelihood of making the jury think that they have to—that the standard of proof is lower
than it really is.” 3 Report of Proceedings (RP) at 204. Henderson did not object to the use of the
phrase, “truth of the charge.” CP at 21.
During closing remarks, the prosecutor reiterated to the jury the elements of unlawful
possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The prosecutor stated that the date and
location of the crime were clearly established. The prosecutor then stated, “Did the defendant
possess the controlled substances found in his residence? I submit to you that element has been
satisfied as well.” 4 RP at 276. The prosecutor continued:
[N]ot only was this the defendant’s residence—there’s no dispute over
that—you have a jury instruction, a separate jury instruction, that notes what
possession is, that under Jury Instruction No. 11, it tells you that dominion
and control establishes possession.
Now, no single one of these factors necessarily controls your
decision, but you, as members of the jury, are not asked to leave your
common sense at the courtroom door. You bring that with you.
Does it make sense that if someone owns a residence that they have
dominion and control over that residence? That answer is yes.
4 RP at 276. Henderson did not object.
1
The State also charged Henderson with unlawful delivery of a controlled substance, which the
trial court dismissed prior to trial.
2
47844-7-II
The jury found Henderson guilty of the lesser-included offense of unlawful possession of
a controlled substance. Henderson appealed.
ANALYSIS
I. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Henderson contends, for the first time on appeal, that the prosecutor committed misconduct
during his closing argument when the prosecutor stated that dominion and control establishes
possession. Henderson alleges that the prosecutor misstated the law thereby depriving him of a
fair trial. We disagree
A defendant has a fundamental right to a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, section 22 of the Washington
Constitution. In re Pers. Restraint of Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d 696, 703, 286 P.3d 673 (2012).
Prosecutorial misconduct can deprive a defendant of this constitutional right. Glasmann, 175
Wn.2d at 703-04. To prevail on a prosecutorial misconduct claim, a defendant must prove that the
prosecutor’s conduct was both improper and prejudicial. Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d at 704. Prejudice
is established if there is a substantial likelihood that the misconduct affected the jury’s verdict.
State v. Dhaliwal, 150 Wn.2d 559, 578, 79 P.3d 432 (2003). If the defendant did not object at
trial, as is the case here, the defendant is deemed to have waived any error unless the misconduct
was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that an instruction could not have cured the resulting prejudice.
State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 760-61, 278 P.3d 653 (2012).
“In the context of closing arguments, the prosecuting attorney has ‘wide latitude in making
arguments to the jury and prosecutors are allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the
evidence.’” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 747, 202 P.3d 937 (2009) (quoting State v. Gregory,
158 Wn.2d 759, 860, 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., 181
3
47844-7-II
Wn.2d 757, 336 P.3d 1134 (2014)). “We review the prosecutor’s comments during closing
argument in the context of the entire argument, the issues in the case, the evidence addressed in
the argument, and the jury instructions.” State v. Sakellis, 164 Wn. App. 170, 185, 269 P.3d 1029(2011).
In stating the relevant law to the jury, a prosecutor may not stray beyond the boundaries of
the jury’s instructions. State v. Walker, 164 Wn. App. 724, 736, 265 P.3d 191 (2011). A
prosecutor who misstates the law commits a “serious irregularity” with “grave potential to mislead
the jury.” Walker, 164 Wn. App. at 736.
One of the elements of unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver
is possession. RCW 69.50.401(1). Possession may be actual or constructive. State v. Jones, 146
Wn.2d 328, 333, 45 P.3d 1062 (2002). A person’s dominion and control over a premises is one
factor indicating constructive possession and allows the trier of fact to infer that the person has
dominion and control over the items in the premises. State v. Shumaker, 142 Wn. App. 330, 334,
174 P.3d 1214 (2007).
The trial court properly instructed the jury that possession may be “actual or constructive”
and “[c]onstructive possession occurs when there is no actual physical possession but there is
dominion and control over the substance.” CP at 30. The court further instructed that “Proximity
alone without proof of dominion and control is insufficient to establish constructive possession.
Dominion and control need not be exclusive to support a finding of constructive possession.” CP
at 30.
Whether a person has dominion and control over an item depends on the totality of the
circumstances. State v. Jeffrey, 77 Wn. App. 222, 227, 889 P.2d 956 (1995). Dominion and control
can be proved with substantial circumstantial evidence. State v. Gutierrez, 50 Wn. App. 583, 592,
4
47844-7-II
749 P.2d 213 (1988). While evidence of residence, personal possessions on the premises, or
knowledge of the presence of drugs are insufficient individually to show dominion and control,
these factors can establish dominion and control of the premises if found together. State v. Collins,
76 Wn. App. 496, 501, 886 P.2d 243 (1995).
During closing remarks, the prosecutor stated, “[N]ot only was this the defendant’s
residence—there’s no dispute over that—you have a jury instruction, a separate jury instruction,
that notes what possession is . . . it tells you that dominion and control establishes possession.” 4
RP at 276. The prosecutor then stated, “Does it make sense that if someone owns a residence that
they have dominion and control over that residence? That answer is yes.” 4 RP at 276.
The prosecutor stated that it makes sense that someone who owns a residence has dominion
and control over the residence. But, the prosecutor also stated, “no single one of these factors
necessarily controls your decision.” 4 RP 276. Moreover the context of the prosecutor’s remark
was that there were several factors to be considered. Another factor that the prosecutor discussed
was Henderson’s “admissions” to Detective Larson regarding where the cocaine would be located.
4 RP at 276.
Reviewing the prosecutor’s comment in the context of the entire argument, the issues in
the case, the evidence addressed in the argument, and the jury instructions, the prosecutor’s
comments were neither flagrant nor ill-intentioned; therefore, Henderson waived his claim that the
prosecutor violated his right to a fair trial. State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438, 443, 258 P.3d 43(2011).
5
47844-7-II
II. REASONABLE DOUBT INSTRUCTION
The trial court based its reasonable doubt jury instruction on WPIC 4.01.2 Henderson
argues that the language in WPIC 4.01 describing reasonable doubt as the abiding belief “in the
truth of the charge” is a misstatement of the burden of proof because the instruction improperly
focused the jury on a search for “the truth.”3 The State argues it would be improper to reject the
standard instruction found in WPIC 4.01. We agree with the State and find no error.4
This court recently addressed and rejected Henderson’s argument in State v. Jenson, 194
Wn. App. 900, 902, 378 P.3d 270 (2016). We held in Jenson that when read in context, the abiding
“belief in the truth” of the charge phrase “accurately informs the jury its ‘job is to determine
whether the State has proved the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Jenson, 194 Wn.
App. at 902 (quoting State v. Federov, 181 Wn. App. 187, 200, 324 P.3d 784, review denied, 181
Wn.2d 1009 (2014)). The trial court did not err in so instructing the jury.
III. APPELLATE COSTS
Henderson has also filed a supplemental brief opposing appellate costs in light of State v.
Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380, 367 P.3d 612, review denied, 185 Wn.2d 1034 (2016). In light of
Henderson’s indigent status, and our presumption under RAP 15.2(f) that he remains indigent
2
11 WASHINGTON PRACTICE: WASHINGTON PATTER JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 4.01, at 85 (3d
ed. 2008).
3
Henderson alleges several constitutional errors in his assignments of error, but cites legal
authority pertaining to instructional error. We analyze this issue accordingly. See In re Pers.
Restraint of Lord, 152 Wn.2d 182, 188, 94 P.3d 952 (2004) (allegations of constitutional error may
not rely on bald assertions).
4
Henderson did not object to the jury instruction at trial on the same basis that he does on appeal.
Generally, a party who fails to object to jury instructions in the trial court waives a claim of error
on appeal. State v. Smith, 174 Wn. App. 359, 364, 298 P.3d 785 (2013); RAP 2.5(a). However,
since Henderson partially objected to the instruction below, we exercise our discretion and reach
this issue and take the opportunity to again approve this instruction.
6
47844-7-II
“throughout the review” unless the trial court finds that his financial condition has improved, we
exercise our discretion to waive appellate costs in this matter. RCW 10.73.160(1).
We affirm.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,
it is so ordered.
Melnick, J.
We concur:
Johanson, J.
Maxa, A.C.J.
7