People v. Vaughn

• Decision Date: 07 June 1993
• Docket Number: Docket No. 142711
• Citation: 200 Mich.App. 32,504 N.W.2d 2
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Daniel VAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 2

504 N.W.2d 2

200 Mich.App. 32

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Daniel VAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 142711.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted March 31, 1993, at Grand Rapids.

Decided June 7, 1993, at 9:25 a.m.

Released for Publication Aug. 24, 1993.

Timothy G. Holland, Lansing, for defendant-appellant on appeal.

Tony Tague, Muskegon, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MICHAEL J. KELLY, P.J., and WEAVER and SHELTON, ^* JJ.

SHELTON, Judge.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of being an inmate in possession of a controlled substance, M.C.L. § 800.281(4); M.S.A. § 28.1621(4). Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty of being an habitual offender, third offense, M.C.L. § 769.11; M.S.A. § 28.1083. After vacating the sentence for the underlying possession charge, the court sentenced defendant to two to ten years for the habitual offender conviction, which sentence runs consecutively to the term defendant was serving when he committed the offense. This Court granted the defendant's application for delayed appeal. We affirm.

Defendant is incarcerated at the Muskegon Correctional Facility. On December 3, 1987, Sergeant David Bultema, a corrections officer, was patrolling the unit when he came upon, and looked into, defendant's room. He saw defendant on the bed with his arms extended behind the desk. Bultema opened the door to defendant's room, whereupon defendant jumped up, cupped something in his hand, and attempted to get past him. Defendant was unable to get past Bultema and the officer saw defendant turn to the window, open the screen, and toss something out the window. When defendant realized that Bultema was able to see blood on the floor, defendant attempted to wipe up the blood with notebook paper. Defendant threw the notebook paper into the garbage, went to the desk, and removed a small white package that was concealed under a towel. Defendant then swallowed the package.

Bultema searched defendant but was unable to find any incriminating evidence. Bultema then left defendant's room and went outside defendant's window, where another corrections officer was searching the area to find the object that defendant had discarded. In the snow-covered yard, Bultema found a syringe that had blood on the needle. The officers concluded that the syringe had not been there long because there were no footprints in the snow and the syringe was relatively clean. Bultema returned to defendant's room, where he found a cap to the syringe inside defendant's desk.

Laboratory tests were conducted on the syringe and the notebook paper retrieved from defendant's garbage. The laboratory analyst testified that because of the minute portions of material to test, he conducted tests on an extract from the paper and a rinse from the syringe. The tests revealed the presence of a substance on both the rinse and the extract. Further testing revealed that there was cocaine present on both materials. The amount of cocaine found, however, was so minute that it could not be weighed and was invisible to the naked eye. On the basis of this evidence, defendant was convicted as charged.

On appeal, defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the possession conviction because the prosecution failed to establish that he knowingly possessed the cocaine. We disagree.

In determining whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, this Court must apply the standard adopted in People v. Hampton, 407 Mich. 354, 366, 285 N.W.2d 284 (1979), cert. den. 449 U.S. 885, 101 S.Ct. 239, 66 L.Ed.2d 110 (1980). See People v. Wolfe, 440 Mich. 508, 513, 489 N.W.2d 748 (1992). That standard requires us to consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 515, 489 N.W.2d 748. As the Supreme Court stated, when reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we must avoid interfering with the jury's role as the factfinder. Id. at 514, 489 N.W.2d 748.

In this case, defendant was charged with being an inmate in possession of a controlled substance. The intent of the statute is to keep contraband out of the state's prison facilities. People v. Krajenka, 188 Mich.App. 661, 664, 470 N.W.2d 403 (1991). As with any other offense regarding the possession of contraband, the possession may be either actual or constructive. Wolfe, supra, 440 Mich. at 519, 489 N.W.2d 748. It is well established that a person's mere presence at a location where drugs are found, without more, is insufficient to prove constructive possession. Id. at 520, 489 N.W.2d 748; People v. Williams, 188 Mich.App. 54, 57, 469 N.W.2d 4 (1991). There must be some link shown between the person charged with the possession offense and the contraband discovered. Id.; Wolfe, supra, 440 Mich. at 520, 489 N.W.2d 748.

In this case, viewing the evidence and all factual conflicts in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we are constrained to reject defendant's contention that there was insufficient evidence of possession. Defendant claims that because he was incarcerated in a dormitory setting, any one of the other inmates might well have possessed the cocaine. His argument ignores the facts of the case. Construing the facts in favor of the prosecution, defendant was in his room and was engaged in activity that clearly indicated he was using an illegal substance. In an effort to conceal the activity, defendant threw a syringe out his window and swallowed what appeared to be a package of cocaine. There was a clear link between the cocaine found on the syringe and defendant because there was blood on the syringe and on the floor of defendant's room. Moreover, the cap to the syringe upon which the cocaine was discovered was found in defendant's desk. Finally, Bultema and the other officer actually witnessed defendant wipe up the blood on his floor with a piece of notebook paper that was later found to have traces of cocaine on it. In view of these facts, we are persuaded that there was sufficient evidence to connect the cocaine to defendant.

Defendant also argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the possession offense, as a matter of law, because of the minuscule amount of cocaine that was discovered. In support of his argument, defendant relies upon this Court's decision in People v. Hunten, 115 Mich.App. 167, 320 N.W.2d 68 (1982). In Hunten, this Court held that the mere presence of a quantity of a controlled substance that is invisible to the naked eye, without more, is insufficient to support an inference of knowing possession of that substance. Id. at 171, 320 N.W.2d 68.

Defendant's contention that Hunten precludes conviction in all cases where there is a minute quantity of contraband discovered ignores the qualifying language within the Hunten opinion and the case law from which Hunten emanated. This Court specifically stated in Hunten that "[o]ther facts and circumstances might be established from which criminal scienter may be inferred." Id. The Hunten decision grew out of an earlier decision by our Supreme Court in which the Court held that where a defendant is found in possession of an amount of a controlled substance that is visible to the naked eye, it is a sufficient amount to permit prosecution. People v. Harrington, 396 Mich. 33, 49, 238 N.W.2d 20 (1976). The Court "left open" the question whether it is possible to sustain a possession conviction for an amount that is invisible to the naked eye. Id. In Hunten, this Court answered that open question by concluding that an amount of a controlled substance invisible to the naked eye, by itself, is not enough to sustain a conviction.

We believe that the instant case contains "other facts and circumstances" sufficient to distinguish it from the facts in Hunten. In Hunten, the defendant and a fellow inmate at the Muskegon Correctional Facility were fighting in the defendant's cell. A routine search of the defendant's cell was conducted and revealed a syringe and a small pipe hidden in the defendant's shoe. As in this case, laboratory tests were conducted on the residue found on the syringe. Those tests confirmed that the syringe contained a controlled substance. In that context, this Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support an inference that the defendant knowingly possessed a controlled substance. Id.

In this case, although it is true that there...