AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the Defendant, David Enriquez, who was convicted for possession of cocaine found in his wife's car. The Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly arguing against the evidence of his knowledge and control of the cocaine discovered in a very small piece of saran wrap.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove he had knowledge and control of the cocaine found in his wife's car. He reiterated the same facts and arguments previously made in his docketing statement, emphasizing his denial of ownership and the improbability of noticing the cocaine due to its placement and size.
• Appellee (State): Contended that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the Defendant had knowledge and control of the cocaine, pointing to the circumstances under which the cocaine was found and the Defendant's reaction to its discovery.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for possession of cocaine, specifically regarding his knowledge and control of the substance.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for possession of cocaine.

Reasons

• Per WECHSLER, J. (SUTIN, J., and GARCIA, J., concurring): The Court considered the Defendant's arguments against the sufficiency of the evidence but found them unpersuasive. The Court referred to its notice of proposed disposition, which detailed its reasons for concluding that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the Defendant had knowledge and control of the cocaine. The Court highlighted that the presence of contrary evidence supporting acquittal does not necessitate reversal, as the jury is entitled to reject the Defendant's version of the facts. The Court emphasized the role of the factfinder in resolving conflicts in testimony and determining the credibility of witnesses, stating that it does not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the factfinder when there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict (paras 1-4).