State v. Martin
2017 SD 65
| S.D. | 2017Background
- On Sept. 15, 2015, police arrested Christopher Martin on an outstanding warrant after he arrived at an abandoned vehicle he had reported stolen; a search incident to arrest revealed 23 pills in his pocket wrapped in cellophane and a large amount of cash.
- The pills appeared to be prescription oxycodone; Martin first said they belonged to “a friend or friends,” later identified as "Jessica," and gave inconsistent accounts of how the pills came to be in the vehicle.
- Detective Ganser located Jessica and learned she kept prescription oxycodone at home, had given Martin access to her residence (including a key), and had recently been away; her pill storage was disorganized and the pills resembled those found on Martin.
- At trial Martin conceded possession but argued the State failed to prove he knowingly possessed a controlled substance (i.e., that he knew the pills were oxycodone).
- The jury convicted Martin of unlawful possession of a controlled substance; the circuit court denied his motions for judgment of acquittal and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Martin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Martin knowingly possessed a controlled substance | Circumstantial evidence (appearance of pills, cellophane packaging, large cash, inconsistent statements, access to Jessica’s prescription pills) permits inference Martin knew they were controlled | Martin conceded possession but argued no proof he knew the pills were a controlled substance (oxyco done) | Affirmed — jury could infer Martin knew the pills were a controlled substance |
Key Cases Cited
- McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015) ("knowingly" can extend to the character of the object possessed)
- State v. Uhing, 888 N.W.2d 550 (S.D. 2016) (circumstantial evidence may prove mens rea for possession)
- State v. Toben, 842 N.W.2d 647 (S.D. 2014) (knowledge of presence and character of drug is an element of unlawful possession)
- State v. Riley, 841 N.W.2d 431 (S.D. 2013) (possession requires awareness of presence and general character of the substance)
- United States v. Martin, 274 F.3d 1208 (8th Cir. 2001) (defendant need only know he possessed some controlled substance, not exact type)
- United States v. De La Torre, 599 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2010) (government may prove mens rea for possession by showing defendant knew he possessed a controlled substance)