State v. Hagler
| Decision Date | 16 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 29660-4-I,29660-4-I |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Warren D. HAGLER, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Neal Phillip, WADA, Seattle, for appellant.
Raymon Thomas, King County Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent.
The sole issue on this appeal by Warren D. Hagler, a juvenile aged 16 when charged and tried, is whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to support his conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver under RCW 69.50.401(a). We conclude that it was and affirm.
On September 28, 1991, at about 10 p.m., Seattle Police Department Officer Clay Stockwell stopped a car he observed speeding in northeast Seattle. He saw that the driver, Hagler, was hunched over and appeared to be nervously stuffing something under his seat.
Approaching the car, Officer Stockwell noticed four or five small white rocks, which appeared to him to be cocaine, balanced precariously on the window sill on top of the driver's door. As he was taking Hagler out of the car, Officer Stockwell saw white rocks around the car seat, on the floor, on the arm rest of the car door, and falling from Hagler's lap. Officer Stockwell took approximately 24 white rocks of suspected cocaine from the scene. The State's forensic scientist later determined the weight to be 2.8 grams.
Looking into Hagler's open, bulging pocket, Officer Stockwell also saw a roll of cash, later found to total $342.
Hagler gave the officer a phony name. Then, while being led to a police car with his hands cuffed behind his back, Hagler broke free and ran down the street, jumping 10 feet down off an embankment. Officer Stockwell caught him, and Hagler was taken to the north precinct station by backup officers who had arrived.
A small baggie of marijuana (.2 grams) was found in Hagler's car. This was the basis for a conviction for possession of marijuana, which Hagler does not challenge on appeal.
At trial, Officer Stockwell testified that he had been a police officer for 2 1/2 years, that he had made around 15 narcotics arrests in the past 2 years and that he had observed many more such arrests. Officer Stockwell was a member of the bike patrol unit, where he said the officers generally observe narcotics trafficking. Officer Stockwell also had some training from the narcotics section of the Seattle Police Department. He stated his opinion that the amount of cocaine Hagler had--24 rocks--was inconsistent with possession for personal use. He also testified about the cash:
Q. Is there anything that makes you feel that it is consistent in this case that the cocaine possessed was for intended sale?
A. Along with the money in his pocket, the street value of the narcotics. It's approximately $120.00 per gram.
Officer Stockwell said in his experience and training, the common sale unit for cocaine was a rock, and a rock would sell on the street for roughly $20. The juvenile court admitted Officer Stockwell's opinion as to these matters.
The court found that the pieces of cocaine the State recovered from Hagler were:
typical in size to those sold in individual street sale transactions for about $20 per piece as described by Officer Stockwell. The number of pieces of cocaine in State's Exhibit # 1 indicates intended sale rather than possession for purely personal consumption.
The court found the $342 in cash "is consistent in amount and denominations, with proceeds of prior sales of narcotics." The cash, together with an amount of cocaine inconsistent with possession for personal use, satisfied the court that the State had proved intent to deliver. In addition, the court found:
The respondent's attempts to provide false identification and flee from Officer Stockwell's custody while handcuffed indicate his consciousness of guilt.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, the question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Green, 94 Wash.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980). The reviewing court must draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the State and interpret those inferences most strongly against the defendant. State v. Salinas, 119 Wash.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). This inquiry does not require us to determine whether we believe the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Green, 94 Wash.2d at 221, 616 P.2d 628.
Whether there is evidence legally sufficient to go to the jury is a question of law for the courts; but, when there is substantial evidence, and when that evidence is conflicting or is of such a character that reasonable minds may differ, it is the function and province of the jury to weigh the evidence, to determine the credibility of the witnesses, and to decide the disputed questions of fact.
(Footnote omitted.) State v. Theroff, 25 Wash.App. 590, 593, 608 P.2d 1254, aff'd, 95 Wash.2d 385, 622 P.2d 1240 (1980).
The statutory elements of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver are: (1) unlawful possession (2) with intent to deliver (3) a controlled substance; in this case, cocaine. RCW 69.50.401(a); State v. Thompson, 69 Wash.App. 436, 439, 848 P.2d 1317 (1993). Here, the only issue is whether a rational trier of fact could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Reichert
...one additional factor, suggesting a sale and not mere possession, to corroborate the defendant's intent to deliver.State v. Hagler, 74 Wash.App. 232, 236, 872 P.2d 85 (1994). In Hagler, the evidence was sufficient where the defendant was found in possession of 24 rocks of cocaine as well as......
-
State v. Lopez
...86 Wash.2d 1010 (1976). Cases generally require at least one additional factor to establish intent to deliver. See State v. Hagler, 74 Wash.App. 232, 236, 872 P.2d 85 (1994) (large amount of cocaine and $342 in cash in hands of juvenile); State v. Taylor, 74 Wash.App. 111, 123, 872 P.2d 53 ......
-
State v. Wade, 22287-6-II.
...that are substantially related to distribution of drugs, rather than simple possession, as the court required in State v. Hagler, 74 Wash.App. 232, 872 P.2d 85 (1994). Thus, in State v. Hutchins, 73 Wash.App. 211, 868 P.2d 196, because there was no drug paraphernalia, no packaging materials......
-
State v. Wade
...evidence of intent to deliver; rather it was also consistent with evading a simple possession charge, as explained in Hagler, 74 Wash.App. 232, 872 P.2d 85. contain additional factors 5 that are substantially related to distribution of drugs, rather than simple possession, as the court requ......