People of Michigan v. Mark Nolan
326970
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Defendant Mark Nolan was convicted by a jury of: possession with intent to deliver <50 g heroin; possession of <25 g methadone; possession of a controlled substance in jail; and maintaining a drug house; acquitted of delivery charge.
- Two controlled buys by a confidential informant (CI) identified Nolan as the seller; the second buy occurred in the apartment Nolan shared with his mother.
- Police executed a search warrant for the apartment and seized a duffle bag containing 8.4 grams of heroin found in Nolan’s bedroom near his driver’s license and a bill addressed to him.
- Pills later recovered from Nolan at the jail were identified at trial as methadone by a forensic scientist using pill markings and an online drug database.
- Nolan moved to suppress, arguing the warrant lacked a sufficient nexus, was stale, contained false/misleading statements, and relied on hearsay; the trial court denied suppression.
- On appeal Nolan challenged sufficiency of the evidence for all convictions and the validity of the warrant; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent to deliver heroin | Evidence (CI ID, heroin in bedroom, ID/bill, scale, quantity too large for personal use) supports constructive possession and intent to deliver | Insufficient nexus between Nolan and heroin; drugs belonged to someone else ("Buck") | Affirmed: totality of circumstances supports conviction for possession with intent to deliver heroin |
| Sufficiency of evidence for maintaining a drug house | CI purchases in apartment, heroin in Nolan’s bedroom, his ID/mail in room, scale and quantity show continuous drug use/sale from dwelling | Nolan lacked control/management of dwelling to support maintaining a drug house | Affirmed: general control and knowledge support maintaining a drug house conviction |
| Sufficiency of evidence for methadone possession and jail possession | Forensic ID of pills as methadone via markings/database was admissible and credible for a trier-of-fact | Expert did not perform chemical analysis; ID unreliable | Affirmed: expert testimony identifying pills was sufficient for both possession convictions |
| Validity of search warrant (probable cause, staleness, alleged falsehoods) | Affidavit—two controlled buys (one in apartment), corroborating independent police investigation, and recent second buy gave substantial basis for probable cause and freshness | Warrant lacked nexus, was stale, contained false/misleading statements, and relied on unreliable hearsay/CI | Affirmed: magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause; information was not stale; alleged falsehoods not shown to be intentionally or recklessly included and were corroborated |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wolfe, 440 Mich 508 (framework for constructive possession and intent to deliver)
- People v. Hardiman, 466 Mich 417 (constructive possession requires right to control and knowledge)
- People v. Bartlett, 231 Mich App 139 (elements and general-control standard for maintaining a drug house)
- People v. Russo, 439 Mich 584 (staleness and evaluating probable cause over time)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 US 154 (standard for proving intentional/reckless falsehoods in warrant affidavits)