STATE v SMITH

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 82-386 I N THE SUPREME COUET O TEE STATE OF 3IOPJTAP.IA F 1983 STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vsJOE SMITH, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District, I n a n d f o r t h e County o f Rosebud, The H o n o r a b l e A l f r e d B. C o a t e , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: G a r r y P. Bunke, F o r s y t h , Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana J o h n S. F o r s y t h e , County A t t o r n e y , F o r s y t h , 14ontana Submitted on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: APR 7 - 1983 C Clerk January 20, 1903 A p r i l 7 , 1983 Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f the Court. D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n by a Rosebud C o u n t y j u r y f o r f e l o n y c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n of dangerous d r u g s . We a f f irm. On December 1, 1 9 8 1 , d e f e n d a n t a p p l i e d loan with t h e Cheyenne W e s t e r n S m i t h t o l d bank p e r s o n n e l that Bank for a $2,000 i n Ashland, Montana. t h e l o a n was t o r e p a y h i s p a r e n t s f o r money t h e y h a d l e n t him. The l o a n w a s g r a n t e d o n December 3 , 1 9 8 1 , a n d t h a t d a y S m i t h s e n t a W e s t e r n Union money o r d e r i n t h e amount o f $ 3 , 9 0 0 t o h i s b r o t h e r , N a t h a n , i n Florida. H e p a i d a $60 f e e t o W e s t e r n Union f o r s e n d i n g t h e money o r d e r . A bank loan o f f i c e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t even w i t h t h e l o a n S m i t h d i d n o t h a v e s u f f i c i e n t money i n s a v i n g s o r c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t s t o be a b l e t o amass $3,960. On December 7 , 1 9 8 1 , a r e l i a b l e p o l i c e i n f o r m a n t t o l d Officer Larry P r i c e t h a t d e f e n d a n t had s e n t a s u b s t a n t i a l amount o f money o u t o f M i l e s C i t y v i a W e s t e r n Union t o buy drugs. H e a l s o i n f o r m e d t h e o f f i c e r t h a t two o t h e r p e r s o n s were i n v o l v e d i n t h e p l a n a n d t h a t t h e p a c k a g e o f m a r i j u a n a was scheduled t o 1 6 t h and the arrive 18th of i n Ashland, December. Montana, Price between contacted the Western Union a n d v e r i f i e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t h a d s e n t a money o r d e r f o r $3,900 t o a Nathan Smith i n F o r t Myers, Florida. He then c o n t a c t e d t h e Ashland p o s t m a s t e r and a s k e d him t o watch f o r a package from F l o r i d a a d d r e s s e d t o Smith and t o l e t P r i c e know when i t a r r i v e d . P r i c e r e c e i v e d a c a l l f r o m t h e p o s t m a s t e r on December 17, 1981, and was told that it would be a good day to conduct a c o n t r o l l e d s e a r c h of t h e p o s t o f f i c e t h a t he had b e e n r e q u e s t i n g t o d o f o r some t i m e w i t h h i s t r a i n e d , d r u g - s n i f f i n g dog. P r i c e took an envelope of marijuana t o t h e p o s t o f f i c e , gave it t o a p o s t a l employee t o h i d e , and t h e n directed t h e dog to search for The it. dog found the I t a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t o n e p a c k a g e among s e v e r a l envelope. s i t t i n g on t h e f l o o r contained drugs. I t was a d d r e s s e d to S m i t h and had b e e n m a i l e d f r o m F l o r i d a . Price and other members of the Rosebud County s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e t h e n s t a k e d o u t t h e p o s t o f f i c e and w a i t e d f o r d e f e n d a n t t o p i c k up t h e p a c k a g e . d e f e n d a n t and h i s w i f e , Nelda, On December 1 8 , 1 9 8 1 , arrived a t the post office. S m i t h w a i t e d o u t s i d e i n t h e i r p i c k u p w h i l e N e l d a p i c k e d up t h e package. S h e p l a c e d t h e box on t h e f r o n t s e a t o f the t r u c k and p u s h e d i t t o t h e m i d d l e o f t h e s e a t . P r i c e t h e n approached t h e S m i t h s and a s k e d d e f e n d a n t i f t h e box b e l o n g e d t o him. H e r e p l i e d "yeah." Price told t h e S m i t h s a b o u t t h e c o n t r o l l e d s e a r c h h e had c o n d u c t e d and i n f o r m e d them o f h i s s u s p i c i o n s t h a t t h e p a c k a g e c o n t a i n e d i l l e g a l drugs. Defendant stated that contain Christmas presents, the package was supposed to and h e a g r e e d t o accompany t h e o f f i c e r s t o J u s t i c e C o u r t t o o p e n t h e box. He voluntarily carried the and inside. He removed the Finally, package package from Smith s i g n e d a marijuana, a police vehicle placed it then rode t o J u s t i c e Court i n the p o l i c e c a r , o f f i c e r s opened a the few p i e c e s car consent t h e box. "Merry C h r i s t m a s . " for to It of and to carried search it form, inside. and the c o n t a i n e d s i x t e e n pounds o f fruit, and a note that said J o e a n d N e l d a S m i t h were b o t h a r r e s t e d criminal possession of dangerous drugs. a g a i n s t Nelda were l a t e r dropped. The charges Further dress was investigation nonexistent. revealed The loan that to the Florida is Smith ad- currently No w i t n e s s e s were c a l l e d o n b e h a l f o f d e f e n d a n t t o unpaid. e x p l a i n what happened t o t h e $3,900 h e s e n t t o F l o r i d a . Defendant p r e s e n t s a s i n g l e i s s u e on a p p e a l : Is t h e e v i d e n c e is s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n of dangerous drugs? insufficient to Smith argues a sustain that conviction dangerous drugs s i n c e he d i d n o t have the was possession of evidence of time t o sufficient t e r m i n a t e c o n t r o l o v e r t h e p a c k a g e d e l i v e r e d by f i r s t - c l a s s mail. W disagree. e Felony defined in criminal section possession 45-9-102, (1) p o s s e s s e d defendant: of requires MCA, of terminate anything for control." t h a t S m i t h knew o f controlled the drugs, proof that as a ( 2 ) dangerous drugs. "Possession" as: " t h e knowing is d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 4 5 - 2 - 1 0 1 ( 5 2 ) , control dangerous a MCA, sufficient The S t a t e , time therefore, t h e c o n t e n t s of to be must able to establish t h e package and t h a t h e d a n g e r o u s d r u g s f o r a s u f f i c i e n t amount o f t i m e t o be a b l e t o t e r m i n a t e c o n t r o l . This Court has adopted the following standard a p p e l l a t e review of s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence: a f t e r viewing of "Whether, t h e evidence i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , any r a t i o n a l t r i e r o f f a c t c o u l d h a v e f o u n d the essential doubt." S.Ct. J a c k s o n v. 2781, Mon t 1047. elements . Virginia 6 1 L.Ed.2d , of 560, 6 3 1 P.2d the crime beyond ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 4 4 3 U.S. 573; 1273, S t a t e v. 1279, 38 a reasonable 307, Wilson St.Rep. 319, 99 (1981), 1040, I n applying t h a t standard t o t h e evidence presented i n t h e i n s t a n t case, w e h o l d t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e sup- ports defendant's conviction for felony criminal possession of d a n g e r o u s d r u g s . Substantial c r e d i b l e evidence supports f i n d i n g s t h a t S m i t h knew o f t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e p a c k a g e and t h a t he c o n t r o l l e d t h e c o n t e n t s f o r a s u f f i c i e n t t i m e t o b e able t o terminate control. The S t a t e p r o p e r l y c o n c e d e s t h a t e v i d e n c e w h i c h s i m p l y e s t a b l i s h e s d e l i v e r y o f d r u g s by f i r s t - c l a s s m a i l i s i n s u f ficient to demonstrate constructive possession of drugs. The S t a t e a l s o c o n c e d e s t h a t t h e f a c t a p e r s o n i s t h e named a d d r e s s e e of a parcel does not c o n s t i t u t e s u f f i c i e n t evi- d e n c e of c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n . Knowledge o f t h e c o n t e n t s must be proven. Knowledge may b e p r o v e d by d i r e c t e v i d e n c e or of by evidence a c c u s e d f r o m which Anderson Here, (1972), acts, declarations, a j u r y may i n f e r 1 5 9 Mont. 344, or conduct of knowledge. 351, substantial evidence supports S t a t e v. 498 P.2d a the 295, 299. of such finding knowledge. Defendant obtained s t a t e d purpose of a bank loan repaying h i s p a r e n t s . of $2,000 for the On t h a t d a t e , h i s own r e s o u r c e s t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e l o a n were insufficient to a l l o w him t o a c c u m u l a t e c a s h i n t h e amount o f n e a r l y $ 4 , 0 0 0 . Yet on that date, W e s t e r n Union. he wired nearly $4,000 to Florida by A r e l i a b l e informant t o l d Officer P r i c e t h a t d e f e n d a n t a n d two o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s p l a n n e d t o s e n d money t o Florida for a d r u g buy and t h a t t h e package of marijuana would b e d e l i v e r e d b e t w e e n December 1 6 and 18. A package w i t h s i x t e e n p o u n d s o f m a r i j u a n a t h e n a r r i v e d on December 17. The r e t u r n a d d r e s s on t h e box was b o g u s . n o t been r e p a i d . happened The l o a n h a s No e v i d e n c e was i n t r o d u c e d t o e x p l a i n w h a t t o t h e money s e n t t o F l o r i d a . Nothing i n d i c a t e d that defendant's parents actually received any of the $2,000 that Smith borrowed. Sufficient evidence supports defen- dant's knowledge of the package contents. Similarly, the record sustains defendant's conviction for knowing "control for a sufficient time to be able to terminate control." This Court has long recognized that a conviction for possession of dangerous drugs need not be predicated upon a finding of actual possession. Constructive possession may suffice. Court State ex rel. Galyan v. District (1971), 156 Mont. order). 523, 480 P.2d 840 (per curiam The control need not be exclusive but may extend to situations where the contraband is "immediately and exclusively accessible to the accused and is subject to his dominion or control, or to the joint dominion and control of the accused and another." Mont . , Meader (1979), 601 P.2d 386, 392, 36 St.Rep. 1747, 1754; State v. Godsey (1982), St.Rep. State v. Mont. 2354, 2358. , 656 P.2d 811, 815, 39 Constructive possession is a factual determination to be made by the trier of fact. State ex rel. Galyan v. District Court, 156 Mont. at 524, 480 P.2d at 840; State v. Meader, 601 P.2d at 392, 36 St.Rep. at 1755. In a case analogous to the instant case, we recognized constructive possession where the defendant exercised control over a baggage claim ticket for baggage which contained marijuana. P.2d 530. State v. Trowbridge (1971), 157 Mont. 527, 487 In Trowbridge the defendant had checked baggage containing the contraband and then boarded her flight under an assumed name. The suitcase handle and claim check some- how were separated from the luggage and airline employees opened the bag to try to establish identification. They discovered the contraband and notified law enforcement officers. When the handle was subsequently located, the owner destination and were determined enforcement officers were informed. and Missoula law When the defendant's bag did not arrive on her flight, she filled out a luggage claim form describing the missing suitcase. She provided the name and telephone number of a Bruce Bennett as the place she could be reached. Bennett was notified when the baggage arrived and picked it up for Trowbridge. was arrested outside of the airport Trowbridge as she waited for Bennett to deliver the suitcase. Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence here shows that defendant's control of the contraband began when he placed an order for the marijuana and sent the money to Florida via Western Union. he began to exert control over the drugs. cancelled the order. At that point He could have He could have himself claimed the package with the postal claim ticket and immediately disposed of it. The fact that he sent his wife in to pick up the box, as Carolyn Trowbridge had sent Bruce Bennett to pick up the luggage, does not negate the control he exercised over the package. Nor was defendant prevented from deciding to simply not claim the parcel. We reject Smith's argument that he was afforded no opportunity to terminate control because he was immediately confronted by a police officer . Substantial credible evidence sustains conviction. Affirmed. 3 4 8gu4 Chief ~ u s t i c e the We concur:

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.