State v. Grove

THIS OPINION
HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN
ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Christine Grove, Appellant,

Appeal From Georgetown County

 John M. Milling, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-278

Submitted May 1, 2008 – Filed May 27, 2008  

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Asst. Deputy Atty. Gen. Salley W. Elliot, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor John Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Christine Grove appeals her
convictions for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine.  We
affirm.

FACTS

Deputy Sean Seebode observed a car backing out of a
power substation at 3:30 a.m. on December 14, 2005.  When he pulled in to
investigate, he observed two women in the vehicle: Grove, and the driver Bianca
Ford.  Seebode inquired as to their reason for being at the substation so early
in the morning, and the two replied they had stopped so Grove could go to the
bathroom in the neighboring woods.  Seebode checked Ford’s driver’s license and
called in Grove’s name and birthdate, as she did not have identification on her
person.  While Seebode checked the identifications, Corporal Jennifer Flowers
joined him at the scene.  Both Seebode and Flowers asked for permission to
search the vehicle, and Ford verbally consented on each occasion. 

Once consent was
given, Ford and Grove were then directed to exit the vehicle, and Flowers
conducted an initial pat down.  Flowers’ subsequent search of the vehicle
revealed a film canister containing three individually-wrapped bags of
marijuana and six bags of cocaine located under the passenger seat, and five
bags of marijuana beside the driver’s seat.  Grove and Ford were placed under
arrest and taken into custody.  Thereafter, Flowers conducted a more thorough pat
down and search incident to arrest of both women, finding $634 in cash on Grove.[1]

Grove was indicted
for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine, and a jury trial
was held.  After the State presented its case, Grove moved for a directed
verdict, contending the State failed to show she had constructive possession of
the drugs since she was a passenger in a car that belonged to Ford.  This
motion was denied.  Grove presented no evidence in her defense and renewed her
motion for directed verdict at the close of the case.  That motion was denied,
and the jury found Grove guilty of possession with intent to distribute cocaine
and marijuana.  She was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment.  This appeal
followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When
considering a motion for directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with the
existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight.  State v. Weston,
367 S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006).  A defendant is entitled to a
directed verdict when the State fails to present evidence of the offense
charged.  Id.  When reviewing a denial of a directed verdict, an
appellate court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light
most favorable to the State.  Id.  If there is any direct evidence or
any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt
of the accused, the appellate court must find the case was properly submitted
to the jury.  Id. at 292-93, 625 S.E.2d at 648.

LAW/ANALYSIS

Grove
argues the trial court erred in denying her motion for directed verdict as the State
failed to prove she had possession of the cocaine and marijuana that was found
in the vehicle owned by her co-defendant.  We disagree.

A
conviction of possession requires proof of actual or constructive possession of
an illegal substance and knowledge of its presence.  State v. Muhammed,
338 S.C. 22, 26, 524 S.E.2d 637, 639 (Ct. App. 1999).  To establish
constructive possession, the State must prove the defendant had dominion and
control, or the right to exercise dominion and control, over an illegal
substance.  State v. Heath, 370 S.C. 326, 329, 635 S.E.2d 18, 19
(2006).  This can be shown through circumstantial or direct evidence.  Id.  Here, a film canister containing individual bags of cocaine and marijuana was
found just under the front lip of the passenger seat, an area easily accessible
to Grove.  Additionally, a search of Grove’s person revealed $634 in cash, the
existence of which, Flowers testified, when combined with individually packaged
drugs, was often a good indication of drug distribution activity.  Furthermore,
Grove was a close acquaintance of the owner of the vehicle, Ford, who testified
the two had attended a bowling party and smoked marijuana earlier in the
evening.

Viewing
these facts in the light most favorable to the State, as we must under our
standard of review, we find there exists sufficient evidence in the record to
support the trial judge’s decision to submit the issue of actual or
constructive possession to the jury.  Accordingly, the decision of the trial
court is

AFFIRMED.[2]

HEARN,
C.J., and SHORT, J., and KONDUROS, J., concur.

[1] Ford testified that the money was actually hers and
Grove was just holding it for her.

[2] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.