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 Defendant was arrested at her house by a deputy from the San Juan County Sheriff’s Office for a failure to appear warrant. During the arrest, a search incident to arrest was conducted, finding only a lighter in the Defendant's pocket. However, upon arrival at the jail, a further search revealed a plastic bag containing a substance in the Defendant's pocket, which she later admitted was probably methamphetamine and stipulated at trial that it was methamphetamine (para 4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction for possession of a controlled substance, specifically methamphetamine. She contended that the State did not prove she knew the meth was in her pocket nor did she act intentionally to possess the substance (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (para 8).

Reasons

• Per YOHALEM, J., with IVES, J., and HENDERSON, J., concurring: The Court found that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was guilty of possession of a controlled substance. The Court highlighted that knowledge or intent is typically a matter for the jury to decide and can be proved by circumstantial evidence. In this case, the jury could have reasonably inferred that the Defendant knew she possessed methamphetamine based on her admission post-arrest and the circumstances of the discovery of the substance. The Court also noted that the jury is free to reject the Defendant's version of events, emphasizing that it is not the role of an appellate court to reweigh evidence considered at trial. The Court distinguished the Defendant's reliance on State v. Maes regarding constructive possession, stating that the methamphetamine was found on the Defendant's person, not in her residence, which does not align with the Defendant's argument that she was unaware of the contents of her pocket. Therefore, the Court affirmed the conviction (paras 2-7).