State Of Washington v. Felicia R. Barnes, 49067-6

On July 5, 2014, police stopped a car driven by James Mueller; Felicia Barnes was a passenger.
Officers found methamphetamine (6.7 g in a peanut butter jar trap; 10.2 g in a tool kit) hidden in the car’s engine compartment, a digital scale, and matching unused plastic baggies with green alien heads.
Barnes’s purse contained a small glass pipe with meth residue, several unused matching baggies, and $201 in mixed denominations; Mueller had a DOC felony warrant.
The State charged Barnes with possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver; a jury convicted her of that offense.
The trial court granted Barnes’s motion for arrest of judgment, concluding the evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession (and thus intent to deliver), and entered judgment for simple possession.
The State appealed, arguing the trial court improperly weighed evidence and failed to view it in the light most favorable to the State.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported constructive possession of methamphetamine in the car’s engine compartment	The totality of facts (long-term relationship with driver, matching baggies in Barnes’s purse, pipe and meth in purse, cash, large quantities and scale in car) permitted an inference Barnes had dominion and control	Barnes lacked proximity, keys, or ability to immediately access engine-compartment drugs; matching baggies and other facts do not prove dominion/control	Insufficient evidence of constructive possession; conviction for intent to deliver reversed and reduced to simple possession

State v. Longshore, 141 Wn.2d 414 (Wash. 2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence de novo)
State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (Wash. 1992) (insufficiency claim admits State's evidence and inferences are drawn in State's favor)
State v. Campos, 100 Wn. App. 218 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (possession alone, even large amounts, usually insufficient to infer intent to deliver; needs additional indicia)
State v. Turner, 103 Wn. App. 515 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (constructive possession requires dominion and control; mere proximity insufficient)
State v. Ibarra-Cisneros, 172 Wn.2d 880 (Wash. 2011) (distinguishes actual and constructive possession)
State v. Mathews, 4 Wn. App. 653 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971) (passenger exercised dominion where proximity plus additional factors supported control)
State v. Coahran, 27 Wn. App. 664 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980) (automobile can be premises for dominion/control analysis)
State v. Cote, 123 Wn. App. 546 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (passenger not shown to have constructively possessed items found in vehicle)
State v. Chouinard, 169 Wn. App. 895 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012) (knowledge of an item in vehicle does not alone establish dominion/control)