State v. Porte
832 N.W.2d 303
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Porte was driving a van in which police found crack cocaine and marijuana.
- A.R. testified Porte used the van in exchange for crack cocaine and later to obtain the van for money and drugs.
- The center glove compartment contained 21.5 grams of crack cocaine and 50 wrapped packages; other drugs were found nearby.
- Porte claimed he didn’t own the drugs and that he hadn’t opened the center glove compartment.
- The district court convicted Porte on multiple counts, and the district court sentenced him to 98 months; Porte appeals claiming insufficiency of evidence and instructional error.
- The court reverses for a new trial due to a reversible permissive-inference jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession and sale | Porte alleged lack of possession and lack of intent to sell the drugs. | State argued constructive possession and circumstantial evidence of intent to sell. | Evidence sufficient for both possession and intent to sell |
| Permissive-inference instruction error | Porte argued the instruction violated Litzau, Olson, LaBatte prohibiting permissive inferences. | State contended the instruction was proper or harmless. | Instruction was reversible error; remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ortega, 818 N.W.2d 86 (Minn. 2012) (sufficiency review; defer to jury’s credibility)
- State v. Caldwell, 803 N.W.2d 373 (Minn. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Florine, 226 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 1975) (constructive possession framework)
- State v. Lee, 683 N.W.2d 309 (Minn. 2004) (constructive possession proximity consideration)
- State v. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2010) (two-step circumstantial-evidence standard)
- State v. Litzau, 650 N.W.2d 177 (Minn. 2002) (disapproval of permissive-inference instructions; plain error)
- State v. Olson, 482 N.W.2d 212 (Minn. 1992) (permissive-inference instructions discouraged)
- State v. LaBatte, 482 N.W.2d 217 (Minn. 1992) (permissive-inference instructions discouraged)
- State v. Flowers, 788 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. 2010) (circumstantial evidence standard of review)
- State v. Silvemail, 831 N.W.2d 594 (Minn. 2013) (circumstantial-evidence scrutiny framework)
- United States v. Giovannetti, 928 F.2d 225 (7th Cir. 1991) (waiver and sua sponte harmlessness review factors)