226 So. 3d 419
La.2017Background
- Police executed an arrest warrant for Gary D. Howard at his girlfriend Melissa Stewart’s home on October 30, 2013; Stewart indicated Howard was in the bedroom and stepped aside to allow officers entry.
- Officers found Howard in bed and discovered 18 grams of marijuana: 11 grams in four small bags inside a larger bag tied around his boxer shorts, and 7 grams in a separate bag in the bedroom closet.
- In the bedroom closet officers also found a firearm, numerous small sandwich bags (matching the bags used to wrap the marijuana), and an empty prescription bottle with marijuana residue.
- Howard was charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana and illegal possession of a weapon while in possession of a controlled dangerous substance; jury convicted him of possession with intent to distribute (acquitted on the weapon charge).
- The trial court denied Howard’s motion to suppress; the court of appeal and the supreme court affirmed the conviction and the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession with intent to distribute | State: packaging, multiple small bags, many empty sandwich bags, absence of smoking paraphernalia, and expert testimony support intent to distribute | Howard: 18 grams is a small amount consistent with personal use; expert conceded personal-use explanation; packaging could reflect a personal purchase | Affirmed — viewing evidence in the light most favorable to prosecution, a rational juror could exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence and find intent to distribute beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Validity of warrantless entry/search into third party home | State: Stewart consented to officers’ entry (gestured them in), so entry and resultant search were lawful | Howard: entry/search into third-party home required a warrant absent exigency; lack of warrant renders evidence subject to suppression | Affirmed — record supports that Stewart voluntarily consented and had apparent authority to admit officers, so suppression was not required |
| Application of circumstantial-evidence standard (Jackson v. Virginia) | State: under Jackson and Louisiana precedent, appellate review must ask whether every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded when evidence is viewed for prosecution | Howard: alternative hypotheses (personal use; concealment to avoid pat-down) remain reasonable | Affirmed — court applied Jackson and concluded alternative hypotheses were sufficiently rebutted by packaging, bags, firearm, and expert testimony |
| Standing to challenge third-party entry | N/A (Court declined to overrule precedent) | Howard: argues illegal third-party entry should require suppression; asks Court to revisit Barrett | Court avoided overruling Barrett because consent finding made standing issue unnecessary; Barrett remains good law in context presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sets standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La. 1992) (factors indicating intent to distribute)
- State v. Tong, 609 So.2d 822 (La. 1992) (reversed intent-to-distribute conviction where small quantity and indicia favored personal use)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent to search must be voluntary under totality of circumstances)
- Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981) (entry into third-party home to execute arrest warrant generally requires a search warrant absent exigency or consent)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third party with common authority may consent to a search)
- State v. Barrett, 408 So.2d 903 (La. 1981) (held defendant arrested in third party’s home lacked standing to suppress evidence based on illegal third-party entry in certain circumstances)
- State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676 (La. 1984) (applies Jackson standard in Louisiana appellate review)