State of Iowa v. Stella Louise Gore

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 21-1692
Filed January 11, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

STELLA LOUISE GORE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Carl J. Petersen (trial)

and Charles K. Borth (sentencing), Judges.

The defendant appeals her conviction for possession of marijuana, third or

subsequent offense. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau,

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Israel Kodiaga, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Blane, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2023).
2

BLANE, Senior Judge.

Stella Gore appeals her conviction for possession of marijuana, third or

subsequent offense, arguing the district court erred in denying her motion for

judgment of acquittal. She asserts there was insufficient evidence to support the

jury’s verdict. We review sufficiency-of-evidence claims for correction of errors at

law. State v. Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2012). We determine that there

was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Gore guilty of constructive possession

of marijuana, and the district court did not err in denying her motion.

I. Background facts and proceedings.

The parties do not dispute the underlying facts. On June 12, 2019, Clay

County Sheriff Deputy Tyler Heck spotted a pickup truck belonging to Edwin

Gonzalez, whom Heck knew had a suspended driver’s license, and stopped to see

if Gonzalez was driving. The truck was parked next to a sedan. While waiting,

Heck contacted another deputy to come to the location. The two deputies

observed Gore driving away in the pickup. Gonzalez followed, driving the sedan.

The deputies initiated a traffic stop of Gonzalez. Gore pulled the pickup over a

little farther down the road and started walking toward Gonzalez.

After Gonzalez was arrested, Gore told Deputy Heck that the sedan

belonged to her. She swapped vehicles with Gonzalez because she needed a

vehicle to pull her camper and was thinking of buying his pickup. But Gonzalez

told the deputies that he was having problems with the pickup and had asked Gore

to drive the pickup home. Gonzalez advised the deputies Gore could drive away

in his pickup. So the deputies told Gore she could leave in either vehicle.
3

Gore asked if she could leave her car on the side of the road and was told

she could. She then left in Gonzalez’s pickup. But based on the inconsistent

statements given by Gore and Gonzalez as well as Gonzalez’s history of drug

arrests, Heck decided to conduct a canine search of Gore’s car. During the

external search, the canine made an indication of drugs. So Gore’s car was towed

to the sheriff’s office, and the deputies obtained a search warrant for the car.

When deputies searched Gore’s car, they found a purse behind the front

center console that contained a pipe with marijuana residue, a wrench socket also

with marijuana residue, and a metal canister with suspected marijuana, as well as

a medical bill addressed to Gore. They also located a metal lock box under the

front passenger seat that contained a pipe, a THC wax container, a digital scale,

a wrench socket, a marijuana grinder containing .2 grams of suspected marijuana,

and a letter to Gore from her attorney.

Based upon what was found during the search, Heck obtained an arrest

warrant for Gore. He then called Gore and told her she could retrieve her car.

When Gore arrived at the sheriff’s office, Heck told her that she was under arrest

and, after she reviewed the warrants, he interviewed her. She told Heck that the

drugs found in her car were not hers and that Gonzalez must have put the drugs

there. She admitted to owning both the purse that contained the marijuana and

the “socket pipe” that was found inside the purse. She further admitted that she

“smok[ed] pot” in emergencies, which she explained was when she had pain in her

feet and back.
4

The State charged Gore with possession of marijuana, third or subsequent

offense, a class “D” felony.1 The charges went to a jury trial. At the close of the

State’s evidence, Gore moved for judgment of acquittal arguing there was

insufficient evidence she possessed the drugs. The district court denied Gore’s

motion as to the possession of marijuana. The jury returned a guilty verdict. Gore

stipulated to her prior convictions, and the court sentenced Gore to a term of

incarceration not to exceed five years and a $1250 fine with surcharge. She

appeals.

II. Discussion.

We affirm a jury verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence. See State

v. Crawford, 974 N.W.2d 510, 516 (Iowa 2022). Substantial evidence is evidence

sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact the defendant is guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt. State v. Tipton, 897 N.W.2d 653, 692 (Iowa 2017). In

determining whether the jury’s verdict is supported by substantial evidence, the

court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, including all

“legitimate inferences and presumptions that may fairly and reasonably be

deduced from the record evidence.” Id. (quoting State v. Williams, 695 N.W.2d 23,

27 (Iowa 2005)). Consideration must be given to all of the evidence, not just the

evidence supporting the verdict. State v. Petithory, 702 N.W.2d 854, 856–57 (Iowa

2005). Evidence is not insubstantial merely because it might support a different

1 During the vehicle search the deputy also found a glass pipe in the center console
that appeared to contain methamphetamine residue. Gore was also charged with
possession of methamphetamine, third or subsequent offense. However, during
trial the district court granted Gore’s motion for judgment of acquittal finding that
the State had not proved that Gore possessed the methamphetamine. That
charge is not involved in this appeal.
5

conclusion; the only question is whether the evidence supports the findings

actually made. State v. Jones, 967 N.W.2d 336, 339 (Iowa 2021). Although

“[d]irect and circumstantial evidence are equally probative,” the evidence “must

raise a fair inference of guilt” as to each element of the crime; “it must do more

than create speculation, suspicion, or conjecture.” State v. Schrier, 300 N.W.2d

305, 308 (Iowa 1981); see also State v. Huser, 894 N.W.2d 472, 491 (Iowa 2017);

State v. Meyers, 799 N.W.2d 132, 138 (Iowa 2011); Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(p).

The jury instructions provide that, to show Gore possessed marijuana, the

State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she “knowingly or intentionally

possessed [m]arijuana” and that she “knew that the substance she possessed was

[m]arijuana.” On appeal, Gore contends the State did not make that showing.

Possession may be either actual or constructive. State v. Reed, 875

N.W.2d 693, 705 (Iowa 2016). In this case, the State relies on constructive

possession. “The existence of constructive possession turns on the peculiar facts

of each case.” State v. Webb, 648 N.W.2d 72, 79 (Iowa 2002). “To prove

constructive possession, the State must show ‘the defendant had knowledge of

the controlled substance as well as the authority or right to control it.’” State v.

Kern, 831 N.W.2d 149, 161 (Iowa 2013) (citation omitted).

As to controlled substances found in a motor vehicle,

several factors are considered for determining whether a defendant
had constructive possession of contraband. These factors include:
(1) incriminating statements made by the defendant, (2) incriminating
actions of the defendant upon the police’s discovery of drugs among
or near the defendant’s personal belongings, (3) the defendant’s
fingerprints on the packages containing the drugs, and (4) any other
circumstances linking the defendant to the drugs.
Additionally, in a motor-vehicle case, a court may also
consider these factors: (1) was the contraband in plain view, (2) was
6

it with the defendant’s personal effects, (3) was it found on the same
side of the car seat or next to the defendant, (4) was the defendant
the owner of the vehicle, and (5) was there suspicious activity by the
defendant. All of these factors are only to be used as a guide in
determining whether the State has established constructive
possession. “Even if some of these facts are present, we are still
required to determine whether all of the facts and
circumstances . . . allow a reasonable inference that the defendant
knew of the drugs’ presence and had control and dominion over the
contraband.”

State v. Kemp, 688 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Iowa 2004) (alteration in original) (internal

citations omitted).

Applying these considerations to the present case, we find the State

presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find Gore had constructive possession

of the marijuana. The drug was found in Gore’s vehicle. Gore and Gonzalez had

just exchanged their vehicles presenting limited time for Gonzalez to plant the

drugs found in Gore’s vehicle. Evidence of marijuana use was found in Gore’s

purse and vehicle. She admitted the purse was hers. A letter addressed to her

was found in her purse. The metal box contained a letter to Gore from her attorney

and personal items indicating the box contained her possessions, including the

grinder containing the marijuana. Gore also admitted using marijuana to treat pain.

She further admitted using the wrench socket to smoke marijuana, which had

marijuana residue on it. These facts and the resulting inferences provide

substantial evidence that Gore constructively possessed marijuana. The district

court did not err in denying Gore’s motion for judgment of acquittal.

AFFIRMED.