State v. Young
1 CA-CR 16-0416
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jun 1, 2017Background
- Edward James Young was convicted by a jury of possession of dangerous drugs for sale (methamphetamine), possession of drug paraphernalia, endangerment, and unlawful flight; he appealed the possession and endangerment convictions.
- Detectives attempted a traffic stop; Young fled, crashed, exited his vehicle, and ran; officers observed him throw an object while fleeing.
- Officers returned to the spot and recovered multiple sealed plastic bags of methamphetamine on a house roof totaling 38 grams (largest bag ~28 grams).
- Forensic testing did not yield usable fingerprints from the plastic bags; the forensic examiner testified that the bags’ condition and contents made latent prints unlikely.
- Narcotics supervisor testified that extra baggies and amounts like three "eightballs" are consistent with sale and that users often both use and sell; no scale, ledger, or cash was found.
- During the high-speed pursuit Young ran a stop sign, veered around traffic in a business district, drove toward oncoming traffic forcing another car to stop, and ultimately collided with a rock wall at about 65 mph near an occupied home.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Young) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Young possessed methamphetamine | Officers saw Young throw an object while fleeing; bags of methamphetamine were found where he threw it; circumstantial evidence supports possession | No methamphetamine found on Young or in car; no fingerprints on bags so possession not proved | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence (throwing, recovery location, officers’ observations) permits reasonable inference of possession |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Young possessed methamphetamine for sale | Amounts recovered (28 g plus others = ~38 g), multiple baggies, expert testimony that amounts and extra baggies indicate sale | No scale, ledger, or cash found; evidence consistent with personal use | Affirmed: sale inference reasonable from amounts, packaging, and expert testimony despite lack of scale/ledger/cash |
| Sufficiency of evidence for endangerment of another person | High-speed flight through business district, running stop signs, veering into traffic, driving toward oncoming car forcing it to stop, and crash near occupied home created actual substantial risk to others | Chase details (passing without leaving road, no one at some intersections, imprecise distances/speed at some moments) insufficient to prove another person was placed in actual substantial risk | Affirmed: jury could find reckless conduct created an actual substantial risk of imminent death or physical injury to motorists and occupants of the nearby home |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 250 P.3d 1188 (App. 2011) (standard for reviewing denial of Rule 20 motion; substantial evidence review)
- State v. Martinez, 226 Ariz. 221, 245 P.3d 906 (App. 2011) (possession-for-sale may be supported even if evidence also consistent with personal use)
- State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 778 P.2d 1185 (App. 1989) (appellate courts will not reweigh evidence on sufficiency review)
- State v. Doss, 192 Ariz. 408, 966 P.2d 1012 (App. 1998) (endangerment requires another person be placed in an actual substantial risk)
- State v. Villegas-Rojas, 231 Ariz. 445, 296 P.3d 981 (App. 2012) (endangerment can be supported by evidence of high-speed, aggressive driving that places others at risk)