State of Iowa v. Latisha Marie Watson ( 2020 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1463
Filed September 23, 2020
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
LATISHA MARIE WATSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Tod Deck, Judge.
Latisha Watson appeals the district court judgment finding her guilty of
possession of a controlled substance in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5)
(2018). AFFIRMED.
Peter J. Leo of Norelius Nelson Law Firm, Denison, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kyle Hanson and Genevieve
Reinkoester, Assistant Attorneys General, and Ryan Benn, Law Student Intern, for
appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.
2
AHLERS, Judge.
Following a bench trial, Latisha Watson was found guilty of possessing
marijuana in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2018). On appeal, Watson
argues the State failed to meet its burden to prove she had actual or constructive
possession of the marijuana found in her vehicle.
I. Background
The district court accurately summarized the facts of this case in its written
judgment filed following trial:
On February 20, 2018, Mapleton Police Chief Jared Clausen
and other law enforcement officers were executing a search warrant
at the defendant’s residence in Monona County, Iowa. The
defendant was not present at the time of the initial search. Near the
conclusion of the execution of the warrant, the defendant arrived
outside the residence in a vehicle. As officers approached her, she
was outside of the vehicle. She was told why law enforcement was
present. An officer asked her if she had any drugs on her or in the
vehicle. She initially denies as much. She is directed by an officer
to open the vehicle. Prior to doing so she states: “Umm . . . actually
. . . there is marijuana in there and it’s just a weed pipe.” She then
states that it is in the backseat.
At this point, the officers realized that another individual was
located lying down in the back seat of the vehicle. They directed that
person to show their hands and exit the vehicle, at which point an
officer says “Aw . . . it’s Clifford.” Clifford Schofield was the individual
lying in the back seat of the car. Clifford is asked if he has anything
on him. He initially denies that he does, but almost immediately
recants and admits to having drug paraphernalia and weed, which
an officer subsequently removes from his pocket. The substance
that was removed from his pocket was marijuana. The evidence
shows as much and the parties stipulated to as much.
Officers searched the car and found spray intended to be used
to cover up the smell of marijuana in the center console between the
driver’s and passenger’s seat. The defendant was driving the vehicle
prior to arriving at the scene. The defendant and Clifford were then
placed under arrest. Just prior to that time, the defendant admits that
one of the pipes belongs to her. As the defendant was being placed
under arrest, Clifford suggests that he was just trying to help the
defendant out.
3
Clifford Schofield testified that he and defendant were dating
at the time of the arrest. He stated that he and the defendant were
driving around that day and he was riding in the back seat of the car.
As they pulled up at the residence and saw the law enforcement
presence, Clifford states that the defendant handed him two pot
pipes and some marijuana. He took that stuff and put it in his pocket
and that stuff was ultimately found on him by the police. Clifford was
charged as a result of the incident. His matters were resolved prior
to trial in this matter and he was not offered any consideration by the
state in return for his testimony. He and the defendant were no
longer dating as of the date of trial.
Based on this evidence, the district court found Watson guilty. Watson’s
subsequent motion for new trial was denied. She appeals, challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence that she possessed the marijuana.
II. Standard of Review
“We review a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence for correction of errors
at law.” State v. Howse, 875 N.W.2d 684, 688 (Iowa 2016). We will consider “all
of the record evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the State, including all
reasonable inferences that may be fairly drawn from the evidence.” State v.
Romer, 832 N.W.2d 169, 174 (Iowa 2013). We will uphold the verdict if substantial
evidence supports it. Howse, 875 N.W.2d at 688. “Evidence is substantial when
‘a rational trier of fact could conceivably find the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.’” Id. (quoting State v. Thomas, 561 N.W.2d 37, 39 (Iowa 1997)).
III. Discussion
To show a defendant unlawfully possessed a controlled substance in
violation of section 124.401(5), the State must show “that the defendant:
(1) exercised dominion and control over the contraband, (2) had knowledge of its
presence, and (3) had knowledge that the material was a controlled substance.”
State v. Bash, 670 N.W.2d 135, 137 (Iowa 2003). The State may show the
4
defendant possessed the controlled substance by showing the defendant had
either actual possession or constructive possession. State v. Thomas, 847 N.W.2d
438, 442 (Iowa 2014).
Watson argues the State has not met its burden to show she had either
actual or constructive possession. In regard to actual possession, Watson
maintains she did not have actual possession because the marijuana “was not
found on her person, but rather the person of Clifford Schofield.” This argument
disregards the legal principle that actual possession does not require the controlled
substance to be found on the defendant’s person; instead, a defendant has actual
possession “when the contraband is found on his or her person or when substantial
evidence supports a finding it was on his or her person ‘at one time.’” Id. (quoting
State v. Vance, 790 N.W.2d 775, 784 (Iowa 2010)).
While it is true law enforcement did not find the marijuana on Watson’s
person, there is substantial direct evidence she had the marijuana on her person
previously. Schofield testified that Watson handed him the marijuana when she
realized police were at her house and Schofield took the marijuana from Watson
to “take the rap” for her. This is direct evidence of Watson’s possession of the
drugs. See Iowa State Bar Ass’n, Iowa Criminal Jury Instruction 100.6 (2017)
(“Direct evidence is evidence from a witness who claims actual knowledge of a
fact, such as an eyewitness.”); State v. Miller, No. 18-2176, 2020 WL 2060299, at
*2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020) (citing with approval a jury instruction stating,
“’Direct evidence’ is evidence from a witness who claims actual knowledge of a
fact, such as an eyewitness”). While Watson criticizes Schofield’s credibility, it is
not our place in a sufficiency-of-the-evidence review to assess credibility of
5
witnesses. Credibility determinations are for the factfinder, which, in this case, was
the district court. See State v. Wells, 629 N.W.2d 346, 356 (Iowa 2001) (“[W]e
defer to the fact finder’s determinations concerning witness credibility.”). The
district court found Schofield’s testimony that Watson handed him the drugs
credible. This direct evidence of Watson’s actual possession of the drugs is
sufficient evidence to sustain the guilty finding.
Having found sufficient direct evidence of Watson’s actual possession of
marijuana, we need not address either the circumstantial evidence of Watson’s
guilt or the evidence of her constructive possession of the drugs.
AFFIRMED.