367 P.3d 41
Alaska Ct. App.2016Background
- Antonio N. Jordan and James F. Letendre were convicted under AS 11.71.040(a)(3)(F) for possessing four ounces or more of marijuana after police found plants/processed marijuana on their residential properties.
- Jordan: troopers found 15 plants in a greenhouse and marijuana in his cabin; dried usable buds/leaves weighed ~25.2 ounces. Jury convicted Jordan of possession (4+ oz) and maintaining a building for controlled substances; trial court excluded Jordan’s proffered testimony that he reasonably believed his yield would be under four ounces.
- Letendre: plants seized weighed ~13 pounds fresh (estimated ~2+ pounds usable) plus 1.88 pounds processed; jury convicted him of possession (4+ oz) but acquitted on distribution and maintaining a building counts.
- Both defendants argued the jury should have been instructed that a reasonable mistake about weight is a defense (Jordan: no instruction; Letendre: instructed mistake was irrelevant).
- Court recognized Alaska constitutional privacy protection for possession of less than 4 ounces in the home (Ravin/Noy), and considered whether due process requires a mens rea for the weight element when possession occurs at home.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State must prove a culpable mental state as to the weight element (4+ oz) under AS 11.71.040(a)(3)(F) when marijuana is in the defendant’s home | State: only knowledge of possession required; strict liability for amount based on legislative intent | Jordan/Letendre: State must prove at least recklessness (or negligence) as to weight because <4 oz in-home possession is constitutionally protected | When possession occurs in the home for personal use, due process requires proof of at least negligence as to the 4‑ounce threshold; otherwise statute is unconstitutional as applied |
| Validity of statutory construction dispensing mens rea for amount per AS 11.81.600/610 | State: legislative history shows intent to dispense with mens rea for quantity; amount is an objective element | Defendants: that construction conflicts with Ravin/Noy privacy protection and Rice constitutional limits on strict liability | Legislature’s intent to impose strict liability on amount is overridden by due process when home privacy is implicated; negligence as to amount is required |
| Whether the trial court’s failure to instruct (Jordan) or incorrect instruction (Letendre) on reasonable mistake requires reversal | Defendants: erroneous instructions deprived them of required defense and warrant reversal | State: error harmless given overwhelming evidence of quantity | Error found but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in both cases given the large amounts; convictions affirmed |
| Whether Jordan’s separate conviction for maintaining a building may stand alongside the possession conviction | State: separate convictions appropriate based on charging theory | Jordan: convictions should be merged | Under Rofkar, convictions should be merged; superior court must enter a single merged conviction and sentence for Jordan |
Key Cases Cited
- Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975) (Alaska constitutional privacy protects adult possession of marijuana in the home for personal use)
- Noy v. State, 83 P.3d 538 (Alaska App. 2003) (Legislature cannot criminalize possession of less than four ounces in the home; Ravin creates a constitutional limit)
- State v. Rice, 626 P.2d 104 (Alaska 1981) (constitutional limits on strict liability; mens rea may be required where conduct is lawful absent proven circumstance)
- State v. Hazelwood, 946 P.2d 875 (Alaska 1997) (factors for determining when mens rea is required for offenses amenable to strict liability)
- Rofkar v. State, 305 P.3d 356 (Alaska App. 2013) (requiring merger of overlapping controlled-substance convictions)
- Myers v. Anchorage, 132 P.3d 1176 (Alaska App. 2006) (due process limits on strict liability in drug-paraphernalia ordinance)
- Solomon v. State, 227 P.3d 461 (Alaska App. 2010) (recognized defense of unwitting intoxication for reasonable, non-negligent mistake)