State Of La. v. Andrus
| Decision Date | 22 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | 2010 KA 1069 |
| Parties | STATE OF LOUISIANA v. MICHAEL A. ANDRUS |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
The defendant, Michael A. Andrus, was charged by bill of information with possession or introduction of contraband into a penal institution, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:402. He pled not guilty. Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted as charged. He moved for new trial, but the motion was denied. The state filed a multiple offender bill of information seeking to have the defendant sentenced as a habitual felony offender under LSA-R.S. 15:529.1. The defendant admitted the allegations in the multiple offender bill and was adjudicated a second-felony habitual offender. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for two years and six months. The defendant now appeals, urging in a single assignment of error that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Finding merit in the defendant's argument, we reverse the conviction, habitual offender adjudication and sentence and order the defendant released.
On May 16, 2008, Deputy Adam Maillho, of the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office, went to the Washington Parish Jail for the purpose of transporting the defendant to the St. Tammany Parish Jail. For reasons that were never fully established in the record, the defendant had been arrested and taken into the Washington Parish Jail. After the defendant arrived at Washington Parish Jail, the officials there learned that there were active attachments on him in St. Tammany Parish.
Upon arriving at the Washington Parish Jail, Deputy Maillho advised the defendant of the attachments, read him his Miranda rights, and restrained him with handcuffs. Pursuant to jail policy, Deputy Maillho was given the defendant's personal property, which consisted of a toiletry bag. Deputy Maillho transported the restrained defendant and his possessions to St. Tammany Parish Jail. Inside the St. Tammany Parish Jail intake area, Deputy Maillho searched the defendant's toiletry bag and found approximately sixty pills, later determined to contain hydrocodone, a Schedule III drug.
Corporal Alex Dantagnan, of the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office Criminal Patrol Division, was called to the jail to handle the matter. Deputy Maillho turned the pills over to Cpl. Dantagnan. The defendant was again advised of his Miranda rights. According to Cpl. Dantagnan, the defendant admitted that the hydrocodone pills belonged to him and indicated he had a prescription for them.1
In his sole assignment of error, the defendant argues there was insufficient evidence presented at the trial of this matter to support the jury's finding that he possessed, introduced, or attempted to introduce contraband into the St. Tammany Parish Jail. Specifically, he argues that the state failed to prove that he had custody or control over his toiletry bag as he was being transferred from the Washington Parish Jail.
In reviewing claims challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must consider "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). See also LSA-C.C.P. art. 821 B; State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305, 1308-09 (La. 1988).
Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:402(E) provides, in pertinent part:
The possession of contraband is analogous to the possession of a controlled dangerous substance. One need not physically possess a controlled dangerous substance to violate the prohibition against possession; constructive possession is sufficient. State v. Converse, 529 So.2d 459, 464-65 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 533 So.2d 355 (La. 1988). A person is considered to be in constructive possession of a controlled dangerous substance if it is subject to his dominion and control, regardless of whether or not it is in his physical possession. However, the mere presence in the area where narcotics are discovered or mere association with the person who does control the drug or the area where it is located is insufficient to support a finding of constructive possession. State v. Smith, 03-0917, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/31/03), 868 So.2d 794, 799.
In the instant case, although we have considered the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that any rational trier of fact could not have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the state proved the essential elements required to convict the defendant of the charged offense. At the trial, the state's evidence regarding the introduction of the hydrocodone pills into the St. Tammany Parish Jail was presented through the testimony of Deputy Maillho. Deputy Maillho testified that he picked the defendant up from the intake area at the Washington Parish Jail, Mirandized him, and immediately placed him in restraints. Deputy Maillho then received, directly from the personnel at the Washington Parish Jail, the defendant's personal belongings, which consisted of a toiletry bag that he apparently had on his person when he was initially brought to the Washington Parish Jail.2 Deputy Maillho testified he transported the defendant directly to the St. Tammany Parish Jail and entered through the secured sally port area of the facility. He then removed the defendant from the vehicle and grabbed the toiletry bag. The defendant remained restrained. Deputy Maillho...
To continue reading
Request your trial