State v. Clayton
| Decision Date | 10 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 12606,12606 |
| Citation | 607 P.2d 1069,101 Idaho 15 |
| Parties | The STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Willie Joe CLAYTON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Klaus Wiebe of King, Wiebe & Morris, Boise, Brown, for defendant-appellant.
David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, P. Mark Thompson, Deputy Attys. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent. SCOGGIN, Justice Pro Tem.
Defendant-appellant Clayton appeals his conviction of possession of heroin. After agreeing to a search of his residence, Clayton was arrested for possession of heroin, which was hidden in the dining room of the home occupied by him and a minor female. At his trial, Clayton testified that he was out of town for the previous three days and did not know that the heroin was in the house until after the police discovered it. His companion testified that the heroin had been given to her by friends who had visited the house during Clayton's absence. She also testified that Clayton was unaware of the heroin.
On cross-examination, Clayton admitted to being a registered heroin addict. He also admitted to ingesting heroin around the time of his arrest. He knew that marijuana, another controlled substance, was present in the house and he acknowledged that he consumed marijuana. The jury found Clayton guilty of constructive possession of heroin.
Clayton argues that the evidence was not sufficient to justify a conviction. The legality of the search and the voluntariness of the consent are not disputed. Rather, Clayton urges that the State failed to prove that he knew heroin was hidden in his home.
A jury verdict will not be disturbed on appeal where there is substantial and competent evidence to support the verdict. State v. Kellogg, 100 Idaho 483, 600 P.2d 787 (1979); State v. Warden, 100 Idaho 21, 592 P.2d 836 (1979). Where the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, then the judgment must be reversed. State v. Warden, 97 Idaho 752, 554 P.2d 684 (1976).
In the present case, the district judge instructed the jury that an element of the offense was knowledge of the heroin. Both Clayton and his companion testified that he knew nothing of the heroin. The State, however, presented evidence that Clayton was a registered heroin addict, that he had admitted to ingesting heroin around the time of his arrest, and that he knew of the presence of marijuana, another controlled substance, in his home. These facts buttress the inference that Clayton knew that the heroin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carter
...the verdict of the jury will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Horn, 101 Idaho 192, 610 P.2d 551 (1980); State v. Clayton, 101 Idaho 15, 607 P.2d 1069 (1980). The next issue raised concerns whether an instruction on self defense impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant.......
-
State v. Garza
...established by proof that a defendant had knowledge of the substance and possessed dominion and control over it. State v. Clayton, 101 Idaho 15, 607 P.2d 1069 (1980); State v. Warden, supra. In other words, constructive possession exists where a nexus between the accused and the controlled ......
-
State v. Randles
...about the marijuana on the premises but not the heroin, at a time before the heroin was found there by the police. State v. Clayton, 101 Idaho 15, 607 P.2d 1069 (1980), involved a defendant who denied knowledge of the heroin found, but was a registered heroin addict, admitted taking heroin ......
-
State v. Ayala
...the enhancement charge. Where there is substantial evidence to support a verdict, it will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Clayton, 101 Idaho 15, 607 P.2d 1069 (1980). As evidence to prove the offense, officer Deulen testified as to measurements he had taken from the alley behind the ho......