 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Hubbard5/9/2003
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In a motel room shortly after 3:30 in the morning, a police officer found Dale Wesley Hubbard and his cousin Crystal, a minor, in possession of and under the influence of methamphetamine. A jury found Hubbard guilty of possession of a controlled substance, contributing to the delinquency or dependency of a minor (contributing), and endangering a minor in one's care or custody (endangering). (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); Pen. Code, §§ 272, subd. (a)(1), 273a, subd. (b).)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Hubbard raises seven issues on appeal. He argues that (1) the evidence of constructive possession of methamphetamine was insufficient; (2) the evidence of contributing by facilitating a minor's drug use was insufficient; (3) the evidence of the care or custody element of endangering was insufficient; (4) the absence of sua sponte accomplice instructions prejudiced him; (5) his counsel's failure to have the court adequately sanitize his prior for possession of a controlled substance for sale constituted ineffective assistance of counsel; (6) instruction with CALJIC No. 17.41.1 violated his constitutional rights and impermissibly infringed on the power of jury nullification; and (7) since the facts in the contributing and the endangering involve activity similar to possession or use of drugs, a remand is necessary for consideration of a Proposition 36 disposition. We will affirm the judgment.
DISCUSSION
1. Sufficiency of the evidence of constructive possession
Hubbard argues that the evidence of constructive possession of methamphetamine was insufficient. The Attorney General argues the contrary.
The record shows that shortly after 3:30 a.m., a police officer knocked on the door of a motel room. From a table where Hubbard, Crystal, and Julie, another minor, were sitting together, Julie grabbed a baggie of methamphetamine and ran toward the bathroom. About 10 seconds later, Hubbard opened the door and allowed the officer to enter the room to "check the welfare of some juveniles." The officer asked if anyone else was inside the room. Hubbard said he thought "maybe somebody was in the bathroom." The officer opened the bathroom door and saw Julie trying to flush a baggie down the toilet. Inside the baggie was an off-white substance the officer suspected, and later laboratory analysis confirmed, was methamphetamine. All four people at the party-Hubbard, Crystal, Julie, and Regina, another minor-were under the influence of methamphetamine. Hubbard stipulated he "knew of its nature as a controlled substance." (See CALJIC No. 12.00.)
From that evidence, the jury not only could, but also presumably did, make reasonable inferences about the connection between Hubbard and the methamphetamine on the table where he was sitting.
"Constructive possession occurs when the accused maintains control or a right to control the contraband; possession may be imputed when the contraband is found in a place which is immediately and exclusively accessible to the accused and subject to his dominion and control, or to the joint dominion and control of the accused and another." (People v. Williams (1971) 5 Cal.3d 211, 215.)
Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence are sufficient to establish possession of methamphetamine. (Armstrong v. Superior Court (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 535, 538-539.)
Only if substantial evidence shows that Hubbard was a "person who possesse " methamphetamine can we uphold the judgment of conviction. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) Applying the test of "`whether, after viewing the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|