This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was present in an apartment where police executed a search warrant for cocaine. During the search, a Tylenol bottle containing crack cocaine was found outside the bathroom window. The Defendant was accused of throwing the bottle out of the window to dispose of evidence when the police arrived. The Defendant denied the allegations, claiming she was in the bathroom fixing her hair and had no involvement with the bottle (paras 2-8).
Procedural History
- District Court of Eddy County: The Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) and tampering with evidence (cocaine).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury on constructive possession, that her counsel was ineffective for not requesting the proper instruction, that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, and that her convictions violated double jeopardy protections (paras 1, 10-11, 13, 16, 19).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the jury instructions were adequate, the Defendant received effective assistance of counsel, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the convictions did not violate double jeopardy (paras 12, 15, 17, 21).
Legal Issues
- Did the trial court commit fundamental error by failing to include a specific portion of the jury instruction on constructive possession?
- Did the Defendant receive ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to request the omitted jury instruction?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for possession of cocaine and tampering with evidence?
- Did the Defendant's convictions for possession of cocaine and tampering with evidence violate her constitutional protection against double jeopardy?
Disposition
- The Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction for tampering with evidence.
- The Court reversed the Defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) on double jeopardy grounds and remanded the case to vacate that conviction (para 24).
Reasons
Per Michael E. Vigil J. (Bustamante and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
Jury Instructions: The Court found no fundamental error in the omission of a specific portion of the jury instruction on constructive possession. The omitted sentence was not relevant to the case's central issue, which was whether the Defendant threw the Tylenol bottle out of the bathroom window. The Defendant would not have been entitled to the instruction even if it had been requested (paras 10-12).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The Court held that the Defendant received effective assistance of counsel. The defense counsel's strategy to argue that the Defendant did not throw the bottle was rational and supported by evidence. The omitted jury instruction was not necessary for this defense, and the Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice (paras 13-15).
Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the tampering with evidence conviction. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, showed that the Defendant threw the Tylenol bottle containing cocaine out of the bathroom window when the police arrived (paras 16-18).
Double Jeopardy: The Court determined that the Defendant's convictions for possession of cocaine and tampering with evidence violated double jeopardy protections. The conduct underlying both convictions was unitary, as the possession of cocaine was subsumed within the act of tampering with evidence. The Court vacated the possession conviction (paras 19-23).