State v. Andrew Scott Gomez
Background
- At 2:30 a.m. officers found Gomez parked with passenger Jennifer Thompson in a secluded lot; both appeared nervous and gave inconsistent statements. A drug dog alerted to the vehicle and officers searched.
- Officers found methamphetamine baggies in a makeup bag and an eyeglass case on Thompson’s person, a digital scale, loose oxycodone, a backpack in the trunk containing marijuana, and a pipe on Gomez’s person with residue later testing positive for methamphetamine.
- Gomez admitted he had smoked methamphetamine earlier that day, had a pipe in his underwear, and had agreed to transport Thompson in exchange for some methamphetamine.
- The State charged Gomez with possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia, with a persistent violator enhancement; the court admitted evidence of the backpack marijuana over Gomez’s Rule 404(b) objection.
- The State argued three alternative theories of possession at trial: (1) Gomez’s admission of earlier use, (2) constructive possession via transporting Thompson in exchange for drugs, and (3) actual possession of a residue-containing pipe. The jury convicted Gomez on both counts and the enhancement; sentence was imposed and Gomez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Gomez's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of backpack marijuana (I.R.E. 404(b)) | Evidence was probative to the possession story and part of the overall scene; admissible | Backpack marijuana was irrelevant to any permissible non-character purpose and was improper propensity evidence | Trial court erred admitting the marijuana under 404(b), but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming other evidence of guilt |
| Failure to give unanimity instruction on possession charge | The State presented alternative theories (actual and constructive possession) of the same discrete offense; no unanimity instruction required | Failure to instruct was error because the State advanced multiple, discrete acts (including earlier use) supporting conviction | The court erred in failing to give a unanimity instruction as to the separate “earlier use” theory, but Gomez did not demonstrate fundamental (prejudicial) error |
| Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession | Evidence of Gomez transporting Thompson, coupled with drugs found on her and her belongings, supported constructive possession | Evidence was insufficient to prove Gomez constructively possessed Thompson’s methamphetamine | No need to decide because actual possession (pipe residue and admissions) provided an alternative supported by the record; conviction stands |
| Prejudice from procedural errors (404(b) admission and unanimity omission) | Any errors were harmless because evidence of actual possession was strong and jury likely relied on supported theory | Errors were prejudicial and warranted reversal | Both errors deemed non-prejudicial; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ehrlick, 158 Idaho 900 (Idaho 2015) (two-step review for I.R.E. 404(b): relevance for non-character purpose and I.R.E. 403 balancing)
- State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (Idaho 2012) (standard for appellate review of unobjected-to errors; three-prong test for fundamental error)
- State v. Southwick, 158 Idaho 173 (Idaho Ct. App. 2014) (alternative theories of possession can be different factual means of proving a single discrete offense; unanimity instruction not required)
- State v. Blake, 133 Idaho 237 (Idaho 1999) (knowledge of a controlled substance may be proven by inference from circumstances)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1991) (general rule: jurors need not agree on the specific factual means by which a defendant committed an offense)