 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McLevain v. Commonwealth8/5/2005
sess the items of drug paraphernalia in the backpack. "' he jury is allowed reasonable latitude in which to infer intent from the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime.'" [footnote omitted].
Further, " ssues of credibility are solely within the purview of the finder of fact and a reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for the jury's on such matters." McLevain testified that he had no knowledge of what was in the backpack. Knowledge can be from direct proof or a strong inference of knowledge.
McLevain denied smelling any odor coming from the backpack, even though he testified to his close proximity to the backpack and despite his prior convictions of possessing methamphetamine. Sheriff Mayhugh testified that there was in fact an odor coming from the backpack and that he was familiar with the odor of methamphetamine based on his training and experience. The fact that Sheriff Mayhugh, a qualified officer, testified to the odor, and upon a proper warrantless search found a large amount of methamphetamine in the backpack, a reasonable jury could infer that those in close proximity to the bag would have smelled the odor. The jury could have reasonably found McLevain's intent through his erratic behavior of running from the scene after Sheriff Mayhugh's attempt to look inside the backpack and his moving of the four-wheeler into the garage upon seeing Sheriff Mayhugh, after parking it initially outside. Further, once it was determined that McLevain had possession of the paraphernalia, the fact that it was found in the fanny pack with the drugs could lead a jury to reasonably believe that the paraphernalia was to be used to ingest a controlled substances. These facts combined with the conclusion that McLevain constructively possessed the backpack, make the jury's finding of intent reasonable.
We further conclude that a reasonable juror could infer that McLevain and Stewart were in complicity with one another to commit the crimes for which they were convicted. McLevain and Stewart were neighbors and family. Stewart was convicted of both trafficking methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. While Stewart adamantly testified that the backpack and its contents belonged to him, the jury heard evidence that the backpack was also in possession of McLevain. The jury as fact-finder has the authority to determine the credibility of witnesses and to rely on the evidence as it feels is necessary. The fact that Stewart allowed McLevain to have ultimate control over the four-wheeler containing over $100,000.00 worth of methamphetamine, and over $10,000.00 in cash could lead a reasonable jury to believe there was complicity between Stewart and McLevain and that McLevain intended to aid Stewart in the endeavor and would allow the jury to easily reject McLevain's assertion that he was riding the four-wheeler simply to repair it.
KRS 502.020 does not require a person to be present at the scene to find him guilty of trafficking or possession of drug paraphernalia, or complicity of either crime as long as it is proven that he possessed the drug evidence. McLevain was found to have possession of the items in the backpack and intent to possess them. It is evident that the totality of the circumstances presented in this record affords fair and reasonable grounds to support the verdict of the jury. In these circumstances, the evidence is sufficient.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and conviction of the Muhlenberg Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|