State of Washington v. Cherryl Ann Grant
33671-9
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 10, 2017Background
- Controlled buys: An informant purchased methamphetamine from James Grant at a bunkhouse near the Grants' home on three occasions (July 24, July 31, and August 19, 2014) under police supervision and recordings.
- Pattern of dependence on Cherryl Grant's presence: Each transaction involved James leaving the bunkhouse for the main house and the informant had to wait until Cherryl Grant was present or returned home.
- Physical evidence at search: When officers executed a warrant the day of the third buy, methamphetamine was found near Cherryl, buy money was in her purse, and a ledger, unused plastic baggies, and a digital scale were located in the house.
- Trial and testimony: James testified on behalf of his mother, claiming sole responsibility and saying he stored drugs in her house without her knowledge and paid rent with buy money. The jury rejected his account.
- Convictions and appeal: Cherryl Grant was convicted of three counts of delivery of methamphetamine (as an accomplice), one count of possession with intent to deliver, and one count of unlawful use of a building for drug purposes; she appealed solely on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Grant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for delivery convictions | Evidence shows Grant was present for each sale, buy money found in her purse, and conduct permitted inference she aided deliveries | James’ testimony: he alone conducted sales and stored drugs in her home without her knowledge | Affirmed — circumstantial and direct evidence supported accomplice delivery convictions |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent to deliver | Presence of drugs, scale, packaging, and buy money supported inference of commercial possession | Methamphetamine was for personal use; not sufficient evidence of commercial intent | Affirmed — jury could infer intent to deliver from items and money found |
| Sufficiency of evidence for unlawful use of building | Evidence showed Grant controlled property and permitted its use for sales (rent paid from buy money; sales based at bunkhouse) | Insufficient proof she controlled the bunkhouse or knowingly allowed its use for drug sales | Affirmed — jury reasonably found she permitted unlawful use of property |
| Credibility challenges and item (ledger) evidence | Testimony and exhibits corroborate State’s theory; jury resolves credibility | Grant attacks credibility of informant recordings/testimony and argues ledger is not drug records | Rejected — appellate court will not reweigh credibility or review omitted exhibit; credibility for jury to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sufficiency-of-evidence standard; review in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216 (Washington standards for sufficiency review)
- State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60 (credibility determinations reserved for the trier of fact)
- State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634 (circumstantial evidence may support conviction)