State v. Moles

Citation130 Wn. App. 461,123 P.3d 132
Decision Date22 November 2005
Docket NumberNo. 32010-0-II.,No. 31779-6-II.,No. 31742-7-II.,31742-7-II.,31779-6-II.,32010-0-II.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
PartiesSTATE of Washington, Respondent, v. William Chesley MOLES; Louis Gouveia Cambra; Alan Robert Conn, Appellants.

Mary Katherine Young High, Reed Manley Benjamin Speir, Sheri Lynn Arnold, Attorneys at Law, Tacoma, WA, Stephanie C. Cunningham, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, for Appellants.

P. Grace Kingman, Attorney at Law, Kathleen Proctor, Pierce County Prosecuting Atty. Ofc., Tacoma, WA, for Respondent.

PART PUBLISHED OPINION

VAN DEREN, A.C.J.

¶ 1 William Chesley Moles, Louis Gouveia Cambra, and Alan Robert Conn appeal their convictions for unlawful possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine as well as Cambra's separate conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance, and Moles' separate convictions for first degree possession of stolen property and making a false or misleading statement to a public servant. They assert that: (1) the evidence fails to support their convictions for possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine; (2) the trial court erred by denying their motion to suppress; and (3) jury instruction number 11 was ambiguous and thus, the State's argument based on jury instruction number 11 was a misstatement of the law. We affirm.

FACTS

¶ 2 On August 9, 2003, Officer Byerley was on routine patrol when he received a dispatch informing him that three males in an unconfirmed stolen red Geo Prism had purchased the maximum allowed quantity of psuedoephedrine from two local grocery stores.

¶ 3 Byerley observed a red Geo Prism matching the dispatch description and license plate number parked in a drug store parking lot. Two males exited the store and got into the car. Byerley stopped the car as it left the parking lot and requested back-up assistance. Once Officer Scott Lane arrived on the scene, the officers asked the three individuals to exit the vehicle one at a time. The officers then handcuffed and searched the defendants before placing them in a police car.

¶ 4 Byerley found store receipts from two grocery stores in Conn's right pocket, reflecting the purchase of three Allerfed packets and three Triphed packets. Byerley found a plastic bag containing brown powder residue, a second bag containing white powder residue, and several coffee filters in Cambra's pockets. Byerley advised Cambra of his Miranda1 rights. Cambra acknowledged that he understood his rights and agreed to talk to the officer. He stated that Moles had possessed the stolen car for several days and that the three defendants had been purchasing pseudoephedrine from various stores.

¶ 5 After taking the defendants into custody, Byerley noticed that the Prism's ignition had been "punched," and contacted dispatch to confirm that the Prism was stolen. Report of Proceedings (RP) at 25. A subsequent search of the Prism revealed (1) four empty blister packs; (2) one box of Suphedrine; (3) a grocery bag containing two empty blister packs and one full package of pseudoephedrine and several loose white pills; (4) a second grocery bag containing two empty boxes of Suphedrine, two blister packs, and numerous loose white pills; and (5) a black bag with two sealed packages of Contac® Cold Medicine.2 According to Byerley's trial testimony, he found close to 440 loose white pills in the vehicle.

¶ 6 The State charged all three defendants with unlawful possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. The State charged Cambra with unlawful possession of a controlled substance. The State also charged Moles with first degree possession of stolen property and with making a false or misleading statement to a public servant.

¶ 7 At the pretrial suppression hearing, Byerley testified that he stopped the Prism "because it was a reported stolen vehicle." RP at 25. The court denied the defendants' motion to suppress.

¶ 8 At trial, Byerley testified that he was a member of the Pierce County Sheriff's clandestine lab team and that he had training in identifying controlled substances. He further testified that the first stage of the manufacturing process is the acquisition of pseudoephedrine tablets that are then crushed and mixed with a solvent. The mixture is strained through a coffee filter, separating the drug from the liquid mixture. Frank Boshears, a forensic scientist, testified that he tested the white tablets, the tan powder, and the white powder residue on the coffee filters. The pills contained pseudoephedrine. He further testified that the brown powder and the white powder residue on the coffee filters tested positive for methamphetamine.

¶ 9 Chung Hoon Lee testified that he shared the Prism with his parents and that it had been stolen. He testified that he called 911 to inform the police about the theft but that it was "probably" his brother who filled out the written report. RP at 212.

¶ 10 The jury found all three defendants guilty as charged. Defendants filed timely notices of appeal.

ANALYSIS
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

¶ 11 Defendants argue that their convictions must be reversed because the jury did not have sufficient evidence to find that they possessed pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. The State responds that the evidence was sufficient because the jury could infer intent to manufacture from the quick succession of cold pill purchases, the drugs in Cambra's pocket, and the large number of loose pseudoephedrine tablets in the car.

¶ 12 Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it permits any rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wash.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). "A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom." Salinas, 119 Wash.2d at 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (citation omitted). Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are equally reliable. State v. Delmarter, 94 Wash.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99 (1980) (citing State v. Gosby, 85 Wash.2d 758, 539 P.2d 680 (1975)).

¶ 13 To establish that defendants possessed pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, the State had to prove that they: (1) possessed pseudoephedrine; and (2) intended to use the pseudoephedrine to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
81 cases
  • State v. Brockob
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • December 28, 2006
    ...with intent to manufacture methamphetamine inform our analysis on the sufficiency of evidence issue for this case. State v. Moles, 130 Wash.App. 461, 123 P.3d 132 (2005); Whalen, 131 Wash. App. 58, 126 P.3d ¶ 60 In Moles, police discovered several empty blister packs, a box of Suphedrine, a......
  • State v. Montgomery
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • May 15, 2008
    ...beyond mere possession of the pseudoephedrine. State v. Brockob, 159 Wash.2d 311, 337, 150 P.3d 59 (2006) (citing State v. Moles, 130 Wash.App. 461, 466, 123 P.3d 132 (2005)). Evidence has been found sufficient where the defendant worked in concert with another person to acquire the pseudoe......
  • State v. Mehrabian
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • June 6, 2013
    ...therefrom.” Salinas, 119 Wash.2d at 201, 829 P.2d 1068. Circumstantial and direct evidence are equally reliable. State v. Moles, 130 Wash.App. 461, 465, 123 P.3d 132 (2005). We defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, witness credibility, and persuasiveness of the evid......
  • State v. Reese
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • October 8, 2013
    ...... and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn. therefrom." State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192,. 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). "Circumstantial evidence and. direct evidence are equally reliable." State v. Moles, 130 Wn.App. 461, 465, 123 P.3d 132 (2005) (citing. State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99. (1980)). We "defer to the trier of fact on issues of. conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the. persuasiveness of the evidence." State v. Thomas, ......
  • 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