State v. Jones

Decision Date03 December 2021
Docket NumberNo. 19-0971,19-0971
Citation967 N.W.2d 336
Parties STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Michael James JONES, Appellant.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Pamela Wingert (argued) of Wingert Law Office, Spirit Lake, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller (argued), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

McDonald, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined.

McDONALD, Justice.

Michael Jones was charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, in violation of Iowa Code § 124.401(1)(b )(7) (2016), and possession of marijuana, in violation of Iowa Code § 124.401(5). At trial, Jones contended he was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time and that there was insufficient evidence to establish he had possession of the controlled substances. The jury disagreed and found Jones guilty as charged. Jones reiterated his argument on appeal, and the court of appeals agreed with Jones and reversed his convictions. We granted the State's application for further review.

This court reviews sufficiency of evidence claims for the correction of errors at law. State v. Sanford , 814 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2012). In conducting that review, we are highly deferential to the jury's verdict. The jury's verdict binds this court if the verdict is supported by substantial evidence. State v. Tipton , 897 N.W.2d 653, 692 (Iowa 2017). Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. In determining whether the jury's verdict is supported by substantial evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, including all "legitimate inferences and presumptions that may fairly and reasonably be deduced from the record evidence." Id. (quoting State v. Williams , 695 N.W.2d 23, 27 (Iowa 2005) ). "Evidence is not insubstantial merely because we may draw different conclusions from it; the ultimate question is whether it supports the finding actually made, not whether the evidence would support a different finding." Brokaw v. Winfield-Mt. Union Cmty. Sch. Dist. , 788 N.W.2d 386, 393 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Raper v. State , 688 N.W.2d 29, 36 (Iowa 2004) ).

The evidence is largely undisputed. At approximately 10:15 p.m. on the night of December 27, 2016, Clay County Deputy Sheriff Josh Long was driving northbound on a highway outside of Spencer. He observed a Dodge Durango sport utility vehicle approximately one mile in front of him pull over, activate its emergency flashers, and park in the gravel on the shoulder of the road. As Deputy Long approached the parked vehicle, he noticed a second vehicle in the ditch on the side of the road. He also noticed someone, later identified as Jones, in the ditch shining a flashlight.

Deputy Long activated his emergency lights and pulled in behind the parked Dodge, which was later identified as Jones's vehicle. As Deputy Long was coming to a stop, Jones exited the ditch, walked past the front of the parked Dodge (moving from the passenger side to the driver side), turned to his left on reaching the driver's side front corner, and then walked along the driver's side of his vehicle back toward Deputy Long's vehicle. Although Deputy Long did not notice it at the time, video from Deputy Long's dashcam showed that as Jones was passing the driver's side front fender of his vehicle, he turned and looked back at the ground in front of his vehicle and then kept walking toward Deputy Long's vehicle.

Deputy Long asked Jones what happened. According to Jones, his friend Heidi Smith had contacted him to help pull Smith's friend's vehicle out of the ditch. Jones stated the vehicle in the ditch had struck a deer and went off the road. The driver of the vehicle and her child had left with someone so the child could get out of the cold. Deputy Long asked where the deer was, and Jones pointed north. They walked north in front of Jones's vehicle and observed a large buck on the side of the road. As they were walking back towards their vehicles, Deputy Long asked Jones for his driver's license. Jones went into his vehicle to get his license. As Jones was retrieving the license, Deputy Long observed a small black drawstring bag under the front bumper of the vehicle approximately twelve to eighteen inches in front of the passenger side tire. Deputy Long shined his flashlight on the bag and observed a glass bulb, which he believed to be a methamphetamine pipe. He did not say anything about the bag at the time.

Deputy Long took Jones's driver's license and asked Jones to wait in the Dodge while Long verified the license information. Deputy Long returned to his vehicle, verified the license information, and called for backup. In response to Deputy Long's call, Deputy Spencer Taylor arrived at the scene. As Long was apprising Taylor of the situation, Jones exited his vehicle and approached the two deputies. The deputies asked Jones to step to the front of Jones's vehicle. Deputy Long asked Jones about the bag on the ground, and Jones denied any knowledge of it. Jones said it looked like a sunglasses case. Deputy Long asked what was in the bag, and Jones responded, "I don't know. Probably nothing good." Deputy Taylor picked up the bag and could see drug paraphernalia. The deputies then detained Jones and placed him in Long's vehicle.

The deputies searched through the bag and found seven individually wrapped baggies of methamphetamine inside a larger baggie. Subsequent testing showed the total weight of methamphetamine was approximately 8.5 grams. The deputies also found a methamphetamine pipe, .27 grams of marijuana, a marijuana pipe, a false battery, a scrap of paper with writing on it, and a fuel saver card. The bottom of the false battery screwed off, and the deputies found additional methamphetamine inside the battery. Subsequent investigation revealed the fuel saver card belonged to someone named Danny Titus. Deputy Taylor later did independent internet research and found Jones was Facebook friends with Titus. Titus was known to law enforcement as a methamphetamine user.

Before leaving the scene, the deputies continued to search the area. They found a key ring approximately ten to fifteen feet in front of Jones's vehicle. Attached to the key ring were two keys and another fuel saver card. Subsequent investigation showed the fuel saver card belonged to someone from Minnesota named Angela Riviera. Law enforcement did not find any connection between Riviera and the persons involved in this case.

The deputies placed Jones under arrest and transported him to the jail where they questioned him. Jones denied knowledge of the baggie or its contents. He suggested the baggie belonged to whoever had been there before him. The deputies seized two $100 dollar bills from Jones. They field tested the bills, and both tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine. The deputies also seized Jones's driver's license. They field tested the license, and it tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine.

While the evidence was largely undisputed, the inferences to be drawn from the evidence were greatly disputed. At trial, the State contended that Jones had the bag containing the methamphetamine in his possession as he was walking out of the ditch, observed Deputy Long's vehicle approaching the scene, and dropped the bag on the ground near the tire to get it off his person and out of sight. Jones contended that he was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. He contended the bag could have been abandoned on the roadside by somebody else. The jury considered the evidence and arguments and found the defendant guilty of all charges.

The court of appeals made three legal errors in reviewing the jury's verdict. First, the court of appeals misstated the law of possession. Possession may be actual or constructive. State v. Thomas , 847 N.W.2d 438, 442 (Iowa 2014). Relying on State v. Atkinson , 620 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Iowa 2000) (en banc), the court of appeals stated "actual possession occurs when the controlled substance is found on the defendant's person." The court of appeals concluded that because "the deputy did not find the controlled substances on [Jones's] person," this case necessarily was a constructive possession case. The court of appeals then went on to hold there was insufficient evidence to prove Jones was in constructive possession of controlled substances.

The court of appeals statement regarding actual possession was an incomplete statement of the law. In decisions subsequent to Atkinson , our appellate courts have clarified a defendant can be in actual possession of a controlled substance when the controlled substance is found on the defendant's person or "when substantial evidence supports a finding it was on [the defendant's] person ‘at one time.’ " Thomas , 847 N.W.2d at 442 (quoting State v. Vance , 790 N.W.2d 775, 784 (Iowa 2010) ); see Vance , 790 N.W.2d at 784 ("Although the pseudoephedrine was not found on Vance's person at the time of the stop, substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that at one time Vance had actual possession of the pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine." (emphasis added)); State v. Eubanks , No. 13-0602, 2014 WL 2346793, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. May 29, 2014) (noting "[t]he statute criminalizes ‘possession’ " and "the State can prove past possession, whether actual or constructive"). In other words, a jury can find a defendant was in actual possession of a controlled substance even when the defendant was not "caught red-handed and in physical possession at the time of the stop or arrest." Eubanks , 2014 WL 2346793, at *3. Other courts have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g. , United States v. Cantrell , 530 F.3d 684, 693 (8th Cir. 2008) ("A person who knowingly has direct physical control over a thing, at a given time, is then in actual possession of it."); People v. McDaniel , 154 Cal.App.2d 475, 316 P.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • State v. Burns
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 31 Marzo 2023
    ...... person's life, revealing not only his particular. movements, but through them his 'familial, political,. professional, religious, and sexual associations.'". Id. at 2216-17 (quoting United States v. Jones , 565 U.S. 400, 415 (2012) (Sotomayor, J.,. concurring)). So, the Court believed, "These location. records 'hold for many Americans the "privacies of. life." '" Id. at 2217 (quoting. Riley v. California , 573 U.S. 373, 403 (2014)). For. this and other reasons, the ......
  • State v. Lucore
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • 25 Enero 2023
    ...... doubt.'" Id. (quoting Ramirez , 895. N.W.2d at 890). Evidence is not rendered insubstantial merely. because it might support a different conclusion; the only. question is whether the evidence supports the finding. actually made. See State v. Jones , 967 N.W.2d 336,. 339 (Iowa 2021). . .           1. Willful Injury-Specific Intent . . .          LuCore. was found guilty of four counts of willful injury, each of. which required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he. ......
  • State v. Euchner
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • 3 Agosto 2022
    ......"We will uphold the verdict if. substantial evidence in the record supports it.". Id. Evidence is not insubstantial just because it. might support a different conclusion; the only question is. whether the evidence supports the finding actually made. See State v. Jones, 967 N.W.2d 336, 339 (Iowa 2021). . .          As. Euchner recognizes, possession of drugs with intent to. deliver "may be inferred from the manner of packaging. the drugs, from large amounts of unexplained cash, as well as. from the quantity of ......
  • State v. Mathis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 18 Marzo 2022
    ......We first address Mathis's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for sexual abuse in the second degree. This court reviews sufficiency of evidence claims for the correction of errors at law. State v. Jones , 967 N.W.2d 336, 339 (Iowa 2021). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we are highly deferential to the jury's verdict. The jury's verdict binds this court if it is supported by substantial evidence. State v. Tipton , 897 N.W.2d 653, 692 (Iowa 2017). Substantial evidence is evidence ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT