Opinion
Court of Appeals Nos. A-10475 / 76 / 85.
September 28, 2011.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Palmer, Kari Kristiansen, Judge, Trial Court Nos. 3PA-08-2749 CR, 3PA-07-3407 CR, 3PA-05-2802 CR.
Dave Reineke, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Jarom B. Bangerter, Assistant District Attorney, Palmer, and John J. Burns, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Bolger, Judges.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
A jury convicted Karen L. Eaken of misconduct involving a controlled substance in the fourth degree for possessing cocaine and misconduct involving a controlled substance in the sixth degree for possessing marijuana. Eaken appeals, arguing her convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence. Having reviewed the record, we affirm her convictions. Discussion
Eaken contends the evidence only showed she was present in a hotel room where drugs were found, and she argues that evidence of mere proximity to drugs is insufficient to support a conviction for possessing them. Eaken cites two cases in which mere proximity, without any evidence connecting the defendant to drugs, was found insufficient to support a conviction for possessing drugs. In both Egner v. State and Marion v. State, the defendants were found near controlled substances, but the prosecution failed to show the defendants knew about or had any connection with the drugs, and other suspects present were directly tied to the drugs. Eaken's case is distinguishable from Egner and Marion. Furthermore, Eaken views the evidence in the light most favorable to herself and overlooks evidence connecting her to the drugs.
Egner v. State, 495 P.2d 1272, 1274 (Alaska 1972) (evidence insufficient where defendant was driver of car in which an open package containing marijuana was found; two other occupants of vehicle had marijuana on their persons and had entered post office to pick up marijuana-containing package; and no evidence showed defendant was in the car when they opened the package).
Marion v. State, 806 P.2d 857, 860 (Alaska App. 1991) (considering admissible evidence, the state presented insufficient evidence to grand jury to support indictment for possessing cocaine found in eyeglass case under passenger seat in which defendant was sitting; no evidence defendant wore glasses, was in possession of any other drugs, no suspicious behavior, no incriminating statements).
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence at trial, this court construes the record in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict and determines whether fair-minded jurors could conclude that the State met its burden of proving Eaken's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This court applies the same standard regardless of whether the State's case is based on circumstantial or direct evidence. The evidence in this case is sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
See Des Jardins v. State, 551 P.2d 181, 184 (Alaska 1976); Silvera v. State, 244 P.3d 1138, 1142 (Alaska App. 2010).
Des Jardins, 551 P.2d at 184.
Palmer Police Officer James Gipson contacted Eaken at a hotel room after receiving an anonymous report. When the officer knocked on the door, Eaken acted suspiciously by slipping out of the hotel room, keeping the door as closed as possible. After talking with Officer Gipson, Eaken slipped back into the hotel room. The officer smelled a very strong odor of burned marijuana when Eaken re-entered the room. When he confronted Eaken about the odor of marijuana, she said "Oh fuck it, come on in, look at everything, open anything you want, I don't give a fuck."
Officer Gipson found remnants of an extinguished marijuana joint under the pillow on the bed. Eaken admitted she had been smoking the marijuana before he knocked on the door and that she tried to blow the smoke out the window. Eaken told the officer she is a drug addict.
The officer found the residue of cocaine in several empty baggies and in various places throughout the room. He found a scale that was secured with a hair elastic that had several pieces of hair that matched Eaken's dark hair, and the scale had her fingerprint on it. Officer Gipson testified that the other female occupant of the hotel room had blonde hair.
Eaken initially told Gipson the scale was for weighing her jewelry. When the officer questioned the veracity of this statement, she said, "Yeah, I was trying. Why not? . . . Well, I'm not stupid and neither are you." The officer replied, "I understand, that's a valiant effort." And Eaken said, "You know, I've got to do what I've got to do." The officer interpreted this to mean she had lied about using the scale for jewelry. Eaken's fingerprint was found on the scale — on the scale surface under the cover that was held in place by the hair band. And under the cover, the scale surface also had cocaine residue on it.
Officer Gipson noticed a pleated sandwich bag with lots of aspirin in it and an aspirin container. Eaken admitted taking the aspirin out of the container and putting it in a bag. Although she denied knowing the contents of the aspirin bottle, when confronted with the small packet the police found in it, she conceded it probably was cocaine. At trial, Eaken changed her story and claimed she had thrown the aspirin bottle in the garbage after emptying the aspirin into the bag and did not know anything about the contents of the container.
If believed, this evidence was sufficient to allow reasonable jurors to conclude Eaken was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of knowingly possessing cocaine and marijuana.
Conclusion
The judgments of the superior court are AFFIRMED.