[¶ 1] Siеrra Christian appealed three criminal judgments entered after a jury found her guilty of child endangerment, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. We affirm.
I.
[¶2] Siеrra Christian lived in a home owned by Darell Sehrum, who had two children. The younger of the two children, S.S., lived at the home and also spent time at her grandmother’s residence. Christian and Schrum’s relationship began when Christian sеrved as a nanny to Schrum’s children, and the relationship eventually became romantic.
[¶ 3] In 2009, law enforcement obtained a search warrant to search Schrum’s home. The chief of police, Michael Frannea, and a sheriffs deputy, Chris Estes, searched the home. They found a mashing bowl, a mallet, an agate stone, a pestle, a credit card, and pen barrels in a common area of the homе. They also found another pen barrel in a night stand of a room they thought to be Christian’s bedroom. They submitted the items to the State Crime Lab, which tested two pen barrels positive for cocaine. The State charged Christian with three separate criminal charges: child endangerment, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
[¶ 4] At trial, the State called four witnesses. The first witness, Deputy Estes, identified Schrum’s children, S.S., age 15, and a sibling, age 19. He testified S.S. resided in the home, as did Christian. He also testified he previously observed S.S. come and go from the home.
[¶ 5] Chief Frannea testified to the romantic relationship between Sehrum and Christian. He also described the search, his observation of “white specks” on some of the paraphernalia, and some of the photographs he toоk during the search. Some of the photographs and all of the paraphernalia were entered as exhibits. He testified that while he did not find any items specifically identifying Christian in the bedroom, he did observe wоmen’s clothing and other personal items.
[¶ 6] The State also called Darell Sehrum as a witness, but he claimed the Fifth Amendment right not to testify. The last witness, Charlene Schweitzer, a forensic scientist at the State Crime Lаb, testified the items seized are common drug paraphernalia. She also testified the two barrels she tested were positive for cocaine.
[¶ 7] At the close of the State’s evidence, Christian movеd for acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29, arguing the State failed to prove the essential elements for each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court denied the motion, finding sufficient evidence to prеsent each of the three charges to the jury. The jury re
II.
[¶ 8] Christian argues the district court erred by denying her motion for a judgment of acquittal on each charge because the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence:
[T]his Court merely reviews the record to determine if therе is competent evidence allowing the jury to draw an inference reasonably tending to prove guilt and fairly warranting a conviction. The defendant bears the burden of showing the evidence reveals nо reasonable inference of guilt when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. When considering insufficiency of the evidence, we will not reweigh conflicting evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses.... A jury may find a defendant guilty even though evidence exists which, if believed, could lead to a verdict of not guilty.
State v. Wanner,
A.
[¶ 9] Christian contends the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict convicting her of child endangerment. Section 19-03.1-22.2(2), N.D.C.C., provides: “a person who knowingly or intentionally causes or permits a child or vulnerable adult to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substancе, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia ... is guilty of a class C felony.” Circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to sustain a jury’s guilty verdict if “the circumstantial evidence has such probative force as to enable the trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Dahl,
[¶ 10] Testimony from Deputy Estes established S.S. was a minor who lived in the house where the paraphernalia and cocaine were found, the same house where Christian resided. He also testified he observed S.S. come and go from the house. Deputy Estes’ testimony creates a reasonable inference Christian knowingly exposed S.S. to cocaine or drug paraphernalia because it places S.S. in the home where they both lived, around the time the cocaine and paraphernalia were found. See State v. Dymowski,
B.
[¶ 11] Christian contends the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict convicting her of possession of a controlled substance. Section 19-03.1-23(7), N.D.C.C., provides: “It is unlawful for any person to willfully, as defined in section 12.1-02-02, possess a controlled substance.” See also N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-07(3)(d) (cocaine is a schedule II controlled substance). Possession may be “actual or constructive, exclusive or joint and may be shown entirеly by circumstantial evidence.” State v. Demarais,
[¶ 12] The State presented the testimony of a forensic scientist from the State Crime Lab who stated she tested two pen barrels positive for cocaine, one found in a common area and one found in a bedroom. Moreover, the State elicited testimony from Deputy Estes and Chiеf Frannea that they found drug paraphernalia, some with white specks, in Christian’s home. They also testified the items seized — including pen barrels, an agate stone, a credit card, a mashing bowl, and a pestle — are items commonly used by those who possess and use drugs.
[¶ 13] One of the pen barrels that tested positive for cocaine was found in a night stand in Christian’s bedroom. Although at the time of the search, Christian disputed the roоm with the night stand was her bedroom, Deputy Estes and Chief Frannea concluded it was her bedroom because of the presence of women’s clothing and other personal items. The room Christian told the offiсers was her bedroom was filled with mostly unopened boxes and looked unused. Chief Frannea testified he heard Darell Schrum, who was on speaker phone with Christian, say he often slept on a couch in a diffеrent room than the room with the night stand.
[¶ 14] This circumstantial evidence created a reasonable inference Christian willfully possessed cocaine because the cocaine was found in her bedrоom — a place where she had the ability to exercise dominion and control over the cocaine. See State v. Demarais,
C.
[¶ 15] Christian contends the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict convicting her of possession of drug paraphernalia. Sectiоn 19-03.4-03, N.D.C.C., provides: “A person may not use or possess with intent to use drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance in violation of сhapter 19-03.1.” Constructive possession can be inferred from a totality of the circumstances. See Morris,
[¶ 16] In most cases involving possession of drug paraphernalia, intent to use the paraphernalia for the purpose of ingesting, preparing, or storing a controlled substance must be proven by circumstantial evidence. Demarais, at ¶ 9. Here, testimony established that two pen barrels tested positive for cocаine. Testimony also established that pen barrels are commonly used to ingest cocaine. One of the barrels was found in Christian’s night stand, and the other was found in a common area with other paraphernаlia, including an agate stone, a credit card, a pestle, and mashing bowls.
[¶ 17] This circumstantial evidence demonstrates Christian’s intent to use the paraphernalia because it placed the parаphernalia in her bedroom and in a common area, a location where she had the ability to exercise dominion and control over the paraphernalia. See Demarais, at ¶ 11 (concluding sufficient evidence supported a guilty jury verdict where Q-tips and baggies found within a purse in the defendant’s shared bedroom tested positive for
III.
[¶ 18] Christian contends the district court erred by instructing the jury that “[c]ocaine residue is cocaine.” Specifically, Christian argues this jury instruction did not adequately advise the jury of the applicable law because “dirty” paraphernalia alone is not evidence sufficient to prove possession of cocaine. This position is not supported by the language of N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-23(7), whiсh Christian was charged with violating.
[¶ 19] We review jury instructions “as a whole to determine whether they fairly and adequately advise the jury of the applicable law.” State v. Buckley,
IV.
[¶ 20] We affirm the criminal judgments.