Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 15-0174
03-01-2016
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. PAMELA ANN BELL, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Myles A. Braccio Counsel for Appellee Mohave County Legal Advocate, Kingman By Jill L. Evans Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR201201085
The Honorable Richard D. Lambert, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Myles A. Braccio
Counsel for Appellee Mohave County Legal Advocate, Kingman
By Jill L. Evans
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Randall M. Howe joined. CATTANI, Judge:
¶1 Pamela Bell appeals her convictions of three counts of possession of drugs for sale and three counts of possession of drug paraphernalia. For reasons that follow, we affirm.
Bell has not challenged additional convictions of conspiracy to sell, transfer, or transport for sale narcotic drugs, and of the sale, transfer, or transportation for sale of narcotic drugs.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 In April 2011, Bell and her sister went to a mail store in Kingman to mail a package. Bell filled out a package return label using the name "Pamela Black" and handed the package to the clerk; meanwhile Bell's sister talked on the phone and restlessly walked in and out of the store. The clerk informed her manager that she felt uneasy shipping the package, and after Bell and her sister left the store, the manager contacted the police. Police officers investigated for several days, and during that time Bell called the store upset that the package had not yet been delivered. Officers ultimately opened the package and found a small bag of cocaine.
¶3 After searching unsuccessfully for the person listed on the return label, the officers learned that Bell was the woman who had attempted to mail the package. After locating her, the officers questioned her about the package, which she claimed to have mailed for Pamela Black, a "not-so-close friend." But after officers told her they knew what was in the package, Bell began to cry, admitted she knew it contained cocaine, and told the officers she mailed it for her sister.
¶4 Bell also told the officers that she and her sister were staying at a nearby motel, and the officers drove her there. Bell told the officers that if they found any drug paraphernalia related to crack or cocaine in her sister's truck, it belonged to her and not her sister. When they arrived at the motel, Bell's sister was in the room, and she and Bell consented to a search of the room and Bell's sister's truck.
¶5 The officers found two baggies of heroin in the microwave oven in the motel room. They also found an envelope containing a digital scale, unused baggies, and baggies containing heroin, crack, cocaine, and methamphetamine in a safe in the room. Inside the truck there was another digital scale and a duffel bag (belonging to Bell's sister) that contained a pipe and a glass vial. Bell's sister's fingerprints were on the digital scale and on one of the drug-filled baggies.
¶6 At trial, Bell's sister testified that she and Bell had rented the motel room together, that the drugs and paraphernalia belonged solely to her, and that Bell was unaware the package contained cocaine. Bell's sister admitted, however, that the idea to use the name Pamela Black was something that she and Bell had both come up with, and she acknowledged that when police initially discovered the drugs, she had asserted that the drugs belonged to her son.
¶7 At the conclusion of the State's case-in-chief, Bell moved for judgment of acquittal, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to convict her of any of the charged offenses. The court denied her motion, and the jury found her guilty as charged. Bell timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 13-4033.
Absent material revisions after the relevant date, we cite a statute's current version. --------
DISCUSSION
¶8 Bell contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support her possession convictions, arguing that the State failed to show she constructively possessed the drugs and paraphernalia. Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial is limited to assessing if substantial evidence supported the jury's verdicts. State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 507, ¶ 76 (2013). "Substantial evidence is proof, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, that would allow reasonable persons to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Id.
¶9 To establish that Bell possessed drugs and paraphernalia, the State was required to show Bell had actual or constructive possession of the contraband. State v. Ottar, 232 Ariz. 97, 99, ¶ 5 (2013). A defendant is deemed to constructively possess prohibited property if it "is found in a place under [the defendant's] dominion [or] control and under circumstances from which it can be reasonably inferred that the defendant had actual knowledge of the existence of the [property]." See State v. Cox, 214 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 10 (App. 2007), aff'd, 217 Ariz. 353 (2007) (alterations in original) (citation omitted); see also A.R.S. § 13-105(34) (defining possess as "knowingly to have physical possession or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over property"). Because possession does not have to be "[e]xclusive, immediate, and personal," multiple individuals can constructively possess the same contraband. See State v. Gonsalves, 231 Ariz. 521, 523, ¶ 9 (App. 2013) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). A person's "mere presence" near prohibited property, however, is insufficient to establish that the person knowingly exercised dominion or control. See State v. Curtis, 114 Ariz. 527, 528, 530 (App. 1977) (holding that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to show constructive possession of drugs found a few feet from the defendant because the defendant was not a resident of the home, and there was no evidence that the defendant used or handled the drugs).
¶10 Bell argues that the evidence here at most supports a finding that she was present where drugs and paraphernalia were found. She points to her sister's confession that the drugs belonged to her, and to her sister's testimony that Bell was not involved in selling drugs and that Bell was unaware that the package contained cocaine. Bell further notes that her sister's fingerprints, not hers, were identified on the scale and on a drug-filled baggie. But Bell's sister's testimony was not necessarily credible. Although she claimed ownership of the contraband, when the drugs were first discovered she told officers that they belonged to her son. And despite claiming Bell was unaware of the cocaine in the package, she had previously indicated that both she and Bell had made up the story about mailing the package for "Pamela Black." Faced with differing stories and admitted falsehoods, whether to believe Bell's sister's testimony was for the jury to decide, and this court will not reweigh the jury's credibility determination. See Cox, 217 Ariz. at 357, ¶ 27 ("No rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.") (citation omitted).
¶11 Moreover, substantial evidence independent of Bell's sister's testimony connected Bell to the contraband. Bell and her sister rented the motel room together; thus, they both had dominion or control over the room. Cf. Curtis, 114 Ariz. at 530 (noting appellant lacked dominion or control in part because she was not a resident of the home). Bell attempted to mail the package containing cocaine, which implied she was aware of the drugs found in the motel room. And using a fake name on the mailing label and telling police officers she had mailed the package for a fictitious person supported a finding that she was aware of illegal drug activity. Additionally, Bell's reaction when she was confronted by a police officer (crying and admitting she knew about the cocaine in the package) provided further evidence she knew about the other drugs and contraband. Moreover, she initially admitted that the drug paraphernalia the officers found was hers. Finally, although only Bell's sister's fingerprints were identified on some of the contraband items, Bell's sister's possession of the items did not preclude a finding that Bell also possessed them. Accordingly, there was substantial evidence presented from which a reasonable juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Bell constructively possessed drugs and drug paraphernalia.
CONCLUSION
¶12 Bell's convictions and sentences are affirmed.