State v. Hathaway, 161 Wash. App. 634

Hathaway was found guilty of unlawful possession of methamphetamine under RCW 69.50.4013 after methamphetamine was found near her during a traffic stop.
Deputy Anderson reviewed Hathaway’s driver’s licensing records during jail visitation screening, uncovering suspended driving privileges.
A vial containing methamphetamine was discovered near Hathaway’s foot during a search incident to arrest; lab results confirmed 0.47 grams.
Hathaway challenged the search as violating privacy rights under article I, section 7 and the Fourth Amendment.
She challenged (i) sufficiency of the evidence, (ii) a requested mere proximity jury instruction, (iii) the to-convict instruction’s elements, and (iv) a jury demand fee imposed at sentencing.
The Court affirmed the conviction but remanded to reduce the jury demand fee to the statutory amount.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Deputy Anderson’s review of DOL records violated rights	Hathaway argues privacy rights were violated under state and federal constitutions.	State asserts no constitutional violation; records access was permissible and non-intrusive.	No violation; privacy rights not implicated by licensing data access.
Sufficiency of the evidence for possession	Proximity evidence alone cannot prove possession.	Evidence showed actual possession; jury could infer possession beyond a reasonable doubt.	Sufficient evidence supports actual possession.
Jury instruction on mere proximity	Trial court should have given a mere proximity instruction.	General possession instruction suffices; proximity instruction not required.	No error; general possession instruction adequately allowed theory of the case.
To-convict instruction elements	Instruction improperly added an unlawful possession element beyond possession.	Unlawful possession is redundant for methamphetamine; error harmless.	Instruction proper; unlawful possession treated as redundant and harmless.
Jur y demand fee correction	Jury demand fee exceeded statutory maximum and is appealable.	Costs and jury fees are governed by RCW 10.01.160 and RCW 10.46.190; fee may be reviewable but not as a direct final judgment.	Conviction affirmed; remanded to correct the jury demand fee to the statutory maximum.

State v. Puapuaga, 164 Wn.2d 515 (2008) (state constitutional privacy analysis uses two-part framework)
State v. McKinney, 148 Wn.2d 20 (2002) (no Gunwall analysis necessary for state constitution issue here)
State v. Jorden, 160 Wn.2d 121 (2007) (private affairs and privacy expectations framework)
State v. Bradshaw, 152 Wn.2d 528 (2004) (unlawful possession requires only nature and possession; defenses exist)
State v. Castle, 86 Wn. App. 48 (1997) (proximity instruction and complete possession doctrine; WPIC sufficiency)
State v. Portrey, 102 Wn. App. 898 (2000) (proximity evidence and possession instructions in similar facts)
State v. Callahan, 77 Wn.2d 27 (1969) (mere proximity insufficient to prove constructive possession)
State v. Staley, 123 Wn.2d 794 (1994) (constructive possession framework)