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 on October 10, 1988, after discarding three zip-lock baggies, two of which contained smaller baggies of cocaine weighing 2.1 grams. A subsequent search of a residence linked to the Defendant uncovered marijuana packaged in 14 smaller baggies within a larger baggie, indicative of distribution. The Defendant admitted to distributing controlled substances and using a pager and a black book for drug transactions (paras 3, 5-7, 16-17).
Procedural History
- District Court of Lea County: Convicted the Defendant of trafficking cocaine and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove (1) intent to distribute the cocaine and (2) constructive possession of the marijuana (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the evidence, including the packaging of the drugs, the Defendant's admissions, and the items found in the residence, supported the convictions (paras 3-4, 16-17).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to prove the Defendant's intent to distribute cocaine?
- Was there sufficient evidence to establish the Defendant's constructive possession of the marijuana?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for trafficking cocaine and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute (para 18).
Reasons
Per Hartz J. (Donnelly and Chavez JJ. concurring):
Intent to Distribute Cocaine: The Court held that intent can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, such as the manner of packaging and the Defendant's admission to distributing drugs. The cocaine was packaged in a manner consistent with sale, and the Defendant's statements to police further supported the intent to distribute (paras 3-4).
Constructive Possession of Marijuana: The Court found sufficient evidence to establish constructive possession. The marijuana was found in a bedroom linked to the Defendant through personal correspondence and a bill for a pager used in drug transactions. The Defendant's admission to drug distribution and the packaging of the marijuana for sale further supported the finding of constructive possession. The Court rejected the argument that exclusive possession of the bedroom was required, noting that possession can be shared (paras 7, 11-17).
The Court distinguished this case from State v. Brietag, emphasizing that the evidence here, including the Defendant's admissions and the connection to the residence, was stronger (paras 9-12).