Young v. Guste

• Decision Date: 21 July 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-3717,87-3717
• Citation: Young v. Guste, 849 F.2d 970 (5th Cir. 1988)
• Parties: Cyrillia YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William H. GUSTE, Jr., Attorney General, State of Louisiana, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 970

849 F.2d 970

Cyrillia YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v.William H. GUSTE, Jr., Attorney General, State of LouisianaRespondent-Appellee.

No. 87-3717.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

July 21, 1988.

Lori R. Fregolle, John Wilson Reed, Glass & Reed, New Orleans, La., for petitioner-appellant.

R. Jeffery Bridger, William A. Marshall, Asst. Dist. Atty., New Orleans, La., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, RUBIN and JONES Circuit Judges.

CLARK, Chief Judge:

Cyrillia Young appeals the denial of habeas corpus relief claiming that her conviction for constructive possession of pentazocine was a denial of due process because it was not supported by substantial evidence.Because a rational finder of fact could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Young actually or constructively possessed the drug, we reverse the denial of habeas corpus relief.

I.

Cyrillia Young and Derek Broadnax were arrested in New Orleans, Louisiana and jointly charged with possession with the intent to distribute pentazocine in violation of La.Rev.Stat.Ann. Sec. 40:967(West 1977).A jury convicted Broadnax of possession of pentazocine with the intent to distribute.Young was convicted of simple possession and sentenced to five years and a $4,958.00 fine.The facts leading up to Young's conviction were as follows:

Acting on the tip of a confidential informant that drugs were being sold, police obtained a warrant to search 2212 Ursulines Avenue in New Orleans.When they arrived, they were confronted with a heavy wooden door and an iron door at the entrance to the premises.To minimize the possibility of destruction of evidence and to protect the safety of the officers, they obtained a wrecker and pretended to tow a car from the front of the premises to entice the occupants outside.As expected, Broadnax emerged followed by Young, who stood on the porch just outside of the wooden door.When police moved in to execute the warrant, Young slammed and locked the wooden door.An officer kicked in the door and seven or eight officers moved in to search the premises.

Inside, they found a safe in the living room with $5,000.00 in cash and some papers including receipts addressed to Derek Broadnaxat 2212 Ursulines and 3116 Dumaine and an automobile title in Broadnax's name at 3116 Dumaine.¹In the bedroom, the officers found several pieces of jewelry on top of a dresser.Several more pieces of jewelry and watches were taken from Young and Broadnax personally.The jewelry included a necklace with a silver pendant marked "Cyrillie," a necklace with a gold pendant marked "Lady C," two gold bracelets, a chain with a silver pendant, a gold pendant marked "Sadie," a gold pendant marked "Derek," a gold "1" on a jade and gold pendant, a group of rings and two watches.The only pieces positively identified as having been found in the bedroom were: three gold rope chains, an unidentified object, a gold pendant with a "C," a gold pendant marked "Sadie," a gold ring and a gold bracelet.SeeState v. Broadnax, 503 So.2d 511, 516(La.App. 4th Cir.1986).In drawers of the dresser, the police found 199 matched sets of Talwin and Pyribenzamine, some marijuana cigarettes, scales, two handguns, and some ammunition.They saw some male clothing and aftershave in the bedroom, but didn't see any female personal effects other than the jewelry.On the basis of this evidence, the jury held that Young was in possession of pentazocine.

A Louisiana Court of Appeals upheld Young's conviction on the basis that Young's presence in the apartment when the warrant was executed, the presence of her jewelry on the dresser and her act of slamming the door when the police tried to enter (which the court construed as indicative of guilty knowledge) supported the jury's conclusion that she constructively possessed the pentazocine.Broadnax, supra, 503 So.2d at 515-16.Young filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Louisiana Supreme Court which was denied with two justices dissenting.State v. Young, 508 So.2d 64(La.1987).Having exhausted her state remedies as required for habeas relief, Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1203, 71 L.Ed.2d 379(1982), Young filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana alleging that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction.Her petition was denied without hearing.Young filed a timely notice of appeal and a certificate of probable cause.We take jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253(1971) and reverse the denial of her petition.

II.

Insufficiency of the evidence can support a claim for federal habeas corpus relief only where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is such that no rational finder of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560(1979);Marler v. Blackburn, 777 F.2d 1007, 1011(5th Cir.1985);Harris v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 904, 905(5th Cir.1981).This court's consideration of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited to a review of the record evidence adduced at trial.Tyler v. Phelps, 643 F.2d 1095, 1102(5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 935, 102 S.Ct. 1992, 72 L.Ed.2d 455(1982).Because Young was convicted of a violation of state law, the substantive law of Louisiana defines the elements of the crime that must be proved.Harris, supra, 646 F.2d at 905 n. 2.Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence in this case was not sufficient to convince a rational finder of fact that Young was in actual or constructive possession of the pentazocine.

Under Louisiana law, to convict for the possession of a controlled substance, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant either actually possessed the substance or constructively possessed it.Harris, supra, 646 F.2d at 906;State v. Alford, 323 So.2d 788, 790(La.1975).The defendant's knowledge of the presence of the drugs in premises where he is located is insufficient to sustain a conviction for constructive possession.Harris, supra, 646 F.2d at 906;State v. Johnson, 404 So.2d 239, 246(La.1981), cert. denied sub nom.Kelly v. Louisiana, 456 U.S. 925, 102 S.Ct. 1970, 72 L.Ed.2d 440(1982).The presence of the defendant in the proximity of the drugs, or his association with the person found to be in possession, is also insufficient to prove constructive possession.State v. Walker, 369 So.2d 1345, 1346-47(La.1979);State v. Walker, 514 So.2d 602, 604(La.App. 4th Cir.1987).

Since Young did not have actual possession of the drugs, the issue narrows to whether she can be charged with constructive possession.To prove constructive possession, the State law required that the proof show that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the drugs and must establish the defendant's guilty knowledge.Bujol v. Cain, 713 F.2d 112, 115(5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1049, 104 S.Ct. 726, 79 L.Ed.2d 187(1984);Walker, supra, 514 So.2d at 604.Establishing dominion and control requires proof such as the defendant's recent use of the drugs, his ownership of the premises where the drugs are found or his frequent or continuous proximity to the drugs.Bujol, supra, 713 F.2d at 116;Walker, supra, 369 So.2d at 1346;State v. Dunn, 446 So.2d 829, 831(La.App. 2d Cir.1984).

In State v. Tasker, 448 So.2d 1311(La.App. 1st Cir.1984), the court stated that factors relevant to proving dominion and control were:

"[t]he defendant's knowledge that illegal drugs are in the area; the defendant's relationship with the person found to be in actual possession; the defendant's access to the area where the drugs were found; the evidence of recent drug use by the defendant, the defendant's physical proximity to the drugs, and any evidence that the particular area was frequented by drug users."

Tasker, 448 So.2d at 1314(citingBujol, supra, 713 F.2d at 115 n. 6).

Applying these factors, it is clear that Young did not have dominion or control over the pentazocine.The trial court inferred Young's knowledge of the presence of...