State v. Cusick

• Decision Date: 23 May 1986
• Docket Number: No. CX-84-2153,CX-84-2153
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Petitioner, Appellant, v. James Michael CUSICK, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 179

387 N.W.2d 179

STATE of Minnesota, Petitioner, Appellant, v. James Michael CUSICK, Respondent.

No. CX-84-2153.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 23, 1986.

Syllabus by the Court

Evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession of cocaine by defendant.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Tom Foley, Ramsey Co. Atty., Steven C. DeCoster, Asst. Co. Atty., St. Paul, for appellant.

Charles E. Hawkins, St. Paul, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of possession of cocaine and was sentenced by the trial court to 1 year and 1 day in prison, with execution stayed for 5 years on condition that he spend 6 months in the work house and otherwise comply with the conditions of probation. The Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 decision, reversed defendant's conviction, holding that the state's evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant knowingly possessed the cocaine. State v. Cusick, 372 N.W.2d 424 (Minn.App.1985). Holding that the state's evidence was sufficient, we reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of conviction.

At 11:00 p.m. on April 15, 1984, Trooper Steven Pott of the Highway Patrol and other officers were dispatched to the scene of a one-car accident in Vadnais Heights. Pott found a Mazda on its left side in the ditch between the two ramps from Highway 35E to Highway 694 East and West. Defendant, who was standing outside the car, apparently uninjured, identified himself as the driver and said that there were no passengers. He said the car was owned by Jodie Crawford of Forest Lake, a friend of his, and that something had gone wrong with the steering and he had lost control. Defendant was "very lethargic" and slow to respond to questions, his pupils were dilated, and he was unsteady on his feet. When he was placed in the squad car and was asked for his driver's license, he said it was in the car in his wallet. Pott and several officers pushed the car off its side back onto its wheels. They found defendant's wallet on the ground where the door window on the driver's side had been; right next to it, only 2 or 3 inches away, they found a small brown vinyl cocaine-user's case containing a gold-colored tool with a spoon on one end and a knife on the other, a folded paper with a razor blade and a clear plastic bag containing what was later determined to be .8 grams of a powdery substance containing cocaine. Pott and the others found a number of other items scattered in a 25-foot area on the ground, mostly to the rear of the car. When Pott asked defendant what the powdery substance was, defendant said he did not know. When Pott said it looked like sugar, defendant said he guessed so. When Pott asked defendant why there was a razor blade in it, defendant did not respond. When he asked defendant if the kit was his, defendant said no, he had not seen it.

At the station Pott tried to get defendant to provide a urine sample, but defendant, who kept falling asleep, was unable to provide one. Thus, we do not know what, if any, controlled substance defendant was on, although he appeared to be under the influence of something. The expert from the BCA testified that the powdery substance contained cocaine. He also testified, on cross-examination, that it was his understanding that cocaine made the user excitable and nervous, not sleepy.

Defendant did not testify. ¹ His girl friend, Crawford, testified that she had known defendant only 2 weeks when the incident occurred. She testified that she and two others had been playing cards with defendant at a room in the Sheraton Midway and that defendant had asked to use her car. She testified that she was chemically dependent on speed and cocaine at the time of the incident and that the cocaine and all of the other items in the car were hers. She testified that the cocaine-user's kit was in her purse, which was in the back seat with her clothing and lots of the other things that were found scattered on the ground to the rear of the car. She testified that she did not tell defendant about the kit but that he knew she was using controlled substances. She testified that it was not until after the incident that defendant and she began living with each other, first at her parents' house in Forest Lake, then in an apartment in St. Paul. They still were living with each other at the time of trial.

In his closing argument, the prosecutor argued that if the jury believed Crawford's testimony, it should find defendant not guilty. But he argued that her testimony was not credible and that she was just trying to help defendant out because she loved him. In support of this argument, he pointed out that her decision to testify was a last-minute decision that was not made until after the trial had started and defense counsel had already given his opening statement.

In reversing defendant's conviction outright, the Court of Appeals stated that the evidence was insufficient because the car was not defendant's car, most of the property in the car was Crawford's property, and Crawford was a cocaine user, and the only evidence of defendant's guilt was the "mere proximity" of defendant's wallet to the cocaine. While the majority opinion agreed that the jury could have disbelieved Crawford's testimony that the cocaine was hers, it apparently concluded that the jury could not disbelieve other aspects of Crawford's testimony and concluded that the evidence connecting defendant to the cocaine was insufficient. The dissenting opinion emphasized that the cocaine-user's kit was found right next to defendant's wallet, whereas all of the other property was in a different area, scattered to the rear of the car. It concluded that the jury reasonably could have inferred that the kit was in the front seat next to...