State v. McDaniel, 92-1174
| Decision Date | 23 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1174,92-1174 |
| Citation | 512 N.W.2d 305 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. David Troy McDANIEL and Pamela Louise McDaniel, Appellants. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Ahmet S. Gonlubol, Asst. Appellate Defender, for appellants.
Bonnie J. Campbell, Atty. Gen., Martha E. Boesen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Michael W. Mahaffey, County Atty., for appellee.
Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and HARRIS, CARTER, SNELL, and ANDREASEN, JJ.
Defendants, David Troy McDaniel and Pamela Louise McDaniel, husband and wife, appeal from their convictions by jury trial of the offense of possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) with intent to deliver. The court of appeals reversed their convictions on the grounds that the district court erred in (1) failing to give an instruction allowing the jury to find that a prosecution witness was an accomplice of defendants and requiring corroboration of that witness's testimony if the jury so found; and (2) allowing evidence of other illegal drug transactions by defendants.
After considering the arguments of the parties and reviewing the record, we find that no error was committed by the district court with respect to the issues on which the court of appeals reversed defendants' convictions. Upon consideration of other issues raised by defendants that were not considered by the court of appeals, we conclude that those issues present no reversible error. We vacate the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the district court.
Defendants were charged on November 25, 1991, with the trial information alleging that they possessed a controlled substance (marijuana) on October 7, 1991, with intent to deliver same in violation of Iowa Code section 204.401(1)(d) (1991). The basis for their prosecution involved events occurring on October 7, 1991, which led to the execution of a search warrant at defendants' residence. On that evening, the police had arrested one Dottie Sheets and found her to be in possession of one and one-quarter ounces of marijuana. Upon questioning, Sheets revealed that she had obtained the marijuana from defendants earlier that evening. She told police and testified at defendants' trial that she had purchased one-quarter ounce of marijuana from defendants and had taken another ounce from them, which she was to sell to third persons on their behalf.
Armed with the information that they obtained from Sheets and with additional evidence obtained by surveillance of Sheets entering and leaving defendants' residence earlier that day, the police obtained a warrant to search defendants' residence. That search revealed a quantity of marijuana in defendants' possession. Evidence presented at the trial included that which we have already recounted and also evidence of a September 1991 marijuana sale by the defendants to Sheets.
The defendants requested the district court to instruct the jury as to the definition of an accomplice and to further instruct them that, if they found that Dottie Sheets was an accomplice of defendants, her testimony against them would have to be corroborated in order to sustain a conviction. The district court declined to give those requested instructions. After hearing the evidence, the jury found both defendants guilty as charged. In hearing their appeal, the court of appeals concluded that a jury issue existed concerning Dottie Sheets' status as an accomplice and that the district court erred in not instructing the jury that if it found her to be an accomplice her testimony must be corroborated. In addition, the court of appeals found that the evidence concerning the September 1991 marijuana sale by defendants should not have been allowed. Because the court of appeals reversed on the two issues we have mentioned, it did not consider several other assignments of error that the defendants have made on their appeal. We consider all of the issues presented.
The court of appeals concluded the jury could have found that Dottie Sheets was acting in concert with the defendants with respect to a potential sale of the one-ounce bag of marijuana in her possession. Based upon this conclusion, that court found that the requested instructions pertaining to the witness's accomplice status should have been given. We disagree. In reviewing the evidence presented against the defendants at trial, it is clear that the marijuana for which they were charged with possessing with intent to deliver was the marijuana found in defendants' residence upon execution of the search warrant. There is nothing in either the information, the evidence presented at trial, or anything else that occurred during the prosecution to suggest that the marijuana in Dottie Sheets' possession was involved in the charges against defendants.
We do not disagree with the court of appeals' conclusion that the evidence would support a finding that defendants were acting in concert with Dottie Sheets with respect to a proposed sale of the one-ounce bag of marijuana in her possession. However, that was not the offense for which they were charged. Conversely, the record does not include evidence from which the jury might find that Dottie Sheets was acting in concert with defendants in possessing with intent to deliver that marijuana found in defendants' residence.
The general rule for determining whether a witness is an accomplice is if the witness could be charged with and convicted of the specific offense for which the accused is on trial. State v. Johnson, 237 N.W.2d 819, 822 (Iowa 1976). The question of whether a particular witness is an accomplice is a question of law when the facts are not disputed or susceptible to different inferences. State v. Berney, 378 N.W.2d 915, 917 (Iowa 1985). When the facts are susceptible to different inferences, the question becomes one of fact for the jury. Id. Possession is actual when the substances are found in the immediate possession of the accused. State v. Parrish, 502 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Iowa 1993); State v. Rudd, 454 N.W.2d 570, 571 (Iowa 1990). Possession is constructive when the defendant maintains sufficient dominion and control of the place where the substances are found. Rudd, 454 N.W.2d at 571. Neither of these means of showing possession would establish Dottie Sheets' possession of the controlled substances at issue in the charges against defendants.
In addition, there is no evidence in the record from which it may be concluded that there was any conspiracy or concerted action between defendants and Dottie Sheets with respect to defendants' possession of the marijuana found at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Putman
...we initially interpreted rule 5.404( b ), our state equivalent to Federal Rule 404(b), as a rule of inclusion. See State v. McDaniel, 512 N.W.2d 305, 308 (Iowa 1994) (“[E]vidence of other illegal activities that tend to prove the defendants' general propensity ... is relevant and should be ......
-
State v. Thoren
...bad-acts evidence, such evidence should not be admitted." State v. Sullivan , 679 N.W.2d 19, 28 (Iowa 2004) (overruling State v. McDaniel , 512 N.W.2d 305 (Iowa 1994), to the extent it described the rule as one of inclusion rather than exclusion); see also State v. Richards , 879 N.W.2d 140......
-
State v. Wells
...court rulings on sufficiency of the evidence claims unless the guilty verdict is not supported by substantial evidence. State v. McDaniel, 512 N.W.2d 305, 309 (Iowa 1994); State v. Hall, 235 N.W.2d 702, 715-16 (Iowa III. Livestock Neglect. Iowa Code section 717.2 makes it a crime to neglect......
-
State v. Morris
...P.2d 1167.25 Catterall, at 377, 486 P.2d 1167.26 Sobrino v. State, 471 So.2d 1333, 1335, 10 Fla.L.Weekly 1591 (1985); State v. McDaniel, 512 N.W.2d 305, 307-08 (Iowa 1994); State v. Stokoe, 224 Mont. 461, 730 P.2d 415, 417-18 (1986); State v. Utterback, 240 Neb. 981, 485 N.W.2d 760, 769-70 ......