State v. Thronsen, No. A-3431
| Court | Court of Appeals of Alaska |
| Writing for the Court | Before BRYNER, C.J., COATS; COATS; Savell; MANNHEIMER |
| Citation | 809 P.2d 941 |
| Parties | STATE of Alaska, Appellant, v. Earl J. THRONSEN, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 26 April 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. A-3431 |
Page 941
v.
Earl J. THRONSEN, Appellee.
Richard J. Ray, Asst. Dist. Atty., Harry L. Davis, Dist. Atty., Fairbanks, and Douglas B. Baily, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellant.
J. John Franich, Asst. Public Advocate, Fairbanks, and Brant McGee, Public Advocate, Anchorage, for appellee.
Before BRYNER, C.J., COATS, J., and ANDREWS, Superior Court Judge. *
COATS, Judge.
On November 8, 1989, the police served a search warrant on a house in Fairbanks
Page 942
which was rented by Earl J. Thronsen's brother. The police described the residence as a "crack house"--a place where people regularly go to congregate and use cocaine. The warrant authorized the police to look for cocaine, cocaine paraphernalia, and the ingredients for making the "crack" form of cocaine.Thronsen was in the house when the search warrant was executed. He was lying face down on a couch in the living room; his hands were beneath him. It appeared to the police officer conducting the search that Thronsen was hiding something underneath his hands. When the police searched the couch, they found a syringe underneath a cushion where Thronsen had been lying. Thronsen's hands had been at the place where the cushions were separated. The syringe was the type used for intravenous drug use; that type of syringe usually leaves track marks on a person's arms. Thronsen had track marks on his arms. Later tests indicated that the syringe contained a trace residue of cocaine.
A sample of Thronsen's blood and urine was taken on November 9, 1989 at 6:39 p.m. and was sent to Anchorage for testing. The urine sample screened positive for the presence of cocaine and/or its metabolites. Expert testing established that Thronsen must have consumed cocaine within the previous 72 hours from the time the urine specimen was collected.
A grand jury indicted on two counts of misconduct involving a controlled substance in the fourth degree. AS 11.71.040(a)(3)(A). In Count I, the grand jury charged Thronsen with knowingly and unlawfully possessing a syringe which contained cocaine. In Count II, the grand jury charged that Thronsen "unlawfully possessed in his body ... cocaine." Thronsen was tried by a jury on these charges.
Thronsen testified at trial. He stated that he had, on previous occasions, taken cocaine with his brother at his brother's house. Although he denied possessing the syringe found in the couch, he stated that in the past, he had shot up cocaine in his brother's house with the type of syringe which was discovered under the couch. He said he had not consumed cocaine at his brother's house on November 8. However, he had smoked a little cocaine at his own house "way earlier" than the time that the search warrant was executed on his brother's house.
At the end of the state's presentation of its case, Thronsen moved for a judgment of acquittal on Count II, which charged Thronsen with possession of cocaine "in his body." Thronsen argued that he could not be convicted of possession of cocaine in his body because he no longer had control over the cocaine once he ingested or injected it. Superior Court Judge Richard D. Savell denied this motion without prejudice.
The jury found Thronsen not guilty on Count I, possession of cocaine in the syringe, and guilty of Count II, possession of cocaine "in his body." Following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McCoy, Nos. 13575
...a person does not have control over the drug, nor does a person have the power to produce or dispose of the drug. See State v. Thronsen, 809 P.2d 941 (Alaska Ct.App.1991); Flinchpaugh, 659 P.2d at 211; State v. Lewis, 394 N.W.2d 212 (Minn.Ct.App.1986); State v. Downes, 31 Or.App. 1183, 572 ......
-
State v. Foreman, NO. 13-19-01
...1993), quoting Flinchpaugh at 834, 659 P.2d 208. See Franklin v. State , 8 Md.App. 134, 258 A.2d 767 (Md. App. 1969) ; State v. Thronsen , 809 P.2d 941 (Alaska App. 1991). Once a drug has been assimilated into the body, a person is rendered incapable of retrieving or controlling that regula......
-
Com. v. Pellegrini
...metabolites in a urine sample does not constitute prima facia evidence of knowing and voluntary possession of cocaine); State v. Thronsen, 809 P.2d 941, 943 (Alaska Ct.App.1991) (defendant could not be convicted of cocaine in his body because he did not have control over the cocaine and the......
-
State v. Griffin, No. 97-0914-CR
...two counts of possession of marijuana, but the State only included one count in its amended information. 2 See, e.g., Alaska v. Thronsen, 809 P.2d 941, 943 (Alaska Ct.App.1991); Indiana v. Vorm, 570 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind.Ct.App.1991); Kansas v. Flinchpaugh, 232 Kan. 831, 659 P.2d 208, 212 (1......
-
State v. McCoy, Nos. 13575
...a person does not have control over the drug, nor does a person have the power to produce or dispose of the drug. See State v. Thronsen, 809 P.2d 941 (Alaska Ct.App.1991); Flinchpaugh, 659 P.2d at 211; State v. Lewis, 394 N.W.2d 212 (Minn.Ct.App.1986); State v. Downes, 31 Or.App. 1183, 572 ......
-
State v. Foreman, NO. 13-19-01
...1993), quoting Flinchpaugh at 834, 659 P.2d 208. See Franklin v. State , 8 Md.App. 134, 258 A.2d 767 (Md. App. 1969) ; State v. Thronsen , 809 P.2d 941 (Alaska App. 1991). Once a drug has been assimilated into the body, a person is rendered incapable of retrieving or controlling that regula......
-
Com. v. Pellegrini
...metabolites in a urine sample does not constitute prima facia evidence of knowing and voluntary possession of cocaine); State v. Thronsen, 809 P.2d 941, 943 (Alaska Ct.App.1991) (defendant could not be convicted of cocaine in his body because he did not have control over the cocaine and the......
-
State v. Griffin, No. 97-0914-CR
...two counts of possession of marijuana, but the State only included one count in its amended information. 2 See, e.g., Alaska v. Thronsen, 809 P.2d 941, 943 (Alaska Ct.App.1991); Indiana v. Vorm, 570 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind.Ct.App.1991); Kansas v. Flinchpaugh, 232 Kan. 831, 659 P.2d 208, 212 (1......