Siercks v. State
154 So. 3d 1085
Ala. Crim. App.2013Background
- Siercks was convicted of unlawful possession of cocaine and sentenced as a habitual offender with three prior felonies to 15 years' imprisonment.
- Officers stopped a 1992 Oldsmobile for a driver not wearing a seatbelt; the female passenger had no ID.
- A small white rock of cocaine was found in plain view between the driver’s door and seat as Siercks attempted to exit.
- Officers identified the substance as crack cocaine, conducted a field test, and arrested Siercks; DFS testing results were not introduced at trial.
- The vehicle was registered to a woman living at the same address as Siercks, supporting an inference of access and dominion over the vehicle; the court denied acquittal and remanded for sentencing with fines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity of the seized substance | Siercks argues the substance was not proven cocaine | Siercks contends lack of scientific testing undermines accuracy | Sufficient evidence the substance was cocaine |
| Constructive possession | Siercks asserts no knowledge or control over the substance | Siercks argues non-exclusive possession; insufficient linking evidence | Sufficient evidence of constructive possession based on dominion over vehicle and location of contraband |
| Fines and sentencing** | Fines were waived due to indigency; proper imposition needed | Mandatory fines must be imposed regardless of indigency | Remanded to impose mandatory fines under §§13A-12-281 and 36-18-7(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. State, 130 So.3d 212 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) (identity of a controlled substance may be proved circumstantially)
- J.M.A. v. State, 74 So.3d 487 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011) (circumstantial proof of substance identity allowed)
- Hanks v. State, 562 So.2d 536 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989) (recognizes circumstantial identification of drugs)
- Headley v. State, 720 So.2d 996 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998) (identification of narcotic substance permissible without chemical analysis)
- Powell v. State, 804 So.2d 1167 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) (identification based on witness knowledge)
- Temple v. State, 366 So.2d 740 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978) (non-exclusive possession circumstances connecting defendant to contraband)
- Robinette v. State, 531 So.2d 682 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987) (non-exclusive possession cases require connecting evidence)
- Ex parte Story, 435 So.2d 1365 (Ala. 1983) (mere presence in automobile with contraband insufficient alone)
- Ward v. State, 484 So.2d 536 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985) (driver generally has control over vehicle; construct possession inferences)
- Laakkonen v. State, 21 So.3d 1261 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008) (constructive possession shown by dominion and control over vehicle)