COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED October
26, 1995 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an
adverse decision by the Court of Appeals.
See § 808.10 and Rule 809.62,
Stats. |
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound
volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 95-1404-CR
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN
COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
STATE
OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RITA
A. WHITISH,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for Grant County: JOHN R.
WAGNER, Judge. Affirmed.
DYKMAN,
J. This is a single-judge appeal
decided pursuant to § 752.31(2)(f), Stats. Rita A. Whitish appeals from a judgment
convicting her of possession of cocaine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia,
contrary to §§ 161.41(3m) and (3r), and § 161.573(1), Stats.
Whitish argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish that she
knowingly possessed these controlled substances. We disagree and therefore affirm.
BACKGROUND
Rita
A. Whitish is the owner of Turner Motors Inc. located in Lancaster,
Wisconsin. As she often did, she
borrowed one of the loaner cars owned by the dealership on Thursday, June 23,
1994, so that she could drive to Platteville to a meet a friend, Steve Heinz. At about 1:30 a.m., after having had dinner
with Heinz, she turned the wrong way on a one-way street and was stopped by
Officer Bruce Buchholtz. Officer
Buchholtz checked her license and found out that it had been suspended. He then arrested her and placed her in
handcuffs. Whitish offered to lock her
car and turn out the dome light but Officer Buchholtz put her in the backseat
of the patrol car and searched her car.
The
car was full of many articles including two dresser drawers full of papers, a cellular
telephone, crutches, a baby stroller and two purses. Officer Buchholtz found a black nylon bag containing four smaller
bags and a cigarette-shaped item on the floor below the driver's seat. The small bags contained some seeds, a brown
material and a white powdery substance.
Subsequent testing revealed that the small bags contained marijuana and
cocaine.
At
the police department, Whitish told Officer Buchholtz that all of the items in
her car were hers, with the exception of the black nylon bag. Officer Buchholtz asked Whitish to take a
blood test but she asked for her attorney because she "thought it was
getting a little serious." Officer
Buchholtz stopped asking her questions and she posted bail and left the police
department. He described her demeanor
as "jumpy, really jittery ... [and] nervous." He testified that she told him that she had
had a glass of wine at dinner.
Whitish
was charged with possession of marijuana, cocaine and drug paraphernalia. At trial, she testified that she did not own
the car that she was driving, but that it was a loaner car owned by Turner
Motors. She stated that other people,
including her employees and customers, had access to the car and that it had
not been cleaned before she used it.
She claimed that the last time she had used that particular car was the
previous Saturday. She admitted that
she was driving with a suspended license and that she had been previously
convicted of another crime. Whitish
also testified that she drank about seven glasses of wine at dinner.
A
Turner Motors employee testified that Turner Motors had owned the car for about
six months before the arrest and 3,228 miles were put on it by the time it was
sold three months later. He confirmed
that the car was used by employees and customers whose cars were being
serviced, and that his job included periodically cleaning the loaner cars on an
as needed basis.
Another
employee testified that Whitish used different loaner cars on different
occasions and that he knew that this particular car had not been cleaned before
Whitish used it. He stated that he had
moved a lot of Whitish's property into the car before her trip but that he
never saw the black bag when he was loading the car. Heinz also testified that he did not see the black nylon bag when
he was in the car for a short period of time and that Whitish had had about six
or seven glasses of wine.
Several
of the witnesses testified as to Whitish's general demeanor. One employee testified that he was not
surprised to learn that Whitish appeared jumpy to Officer Buchholtz because he
described her as "high-strung."
Another employee described her as fidgety. Heinz testified that she was a very "hyper individual, just
always busy, always moving."
SUFFICIENCY OF
THE EVIDENCE
When
a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we must examine whether
the evidence is so insufficient in probative value and force that, as a matter
of law, no reasonable jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Poellinger, 153
Wis.2d 493, 507, 451 N.W.2d 752, 757-58 (1990). We review the evidence presented at trial and draw reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Tarantino, 157 Wis.2d 199, 218, 458 N.W.2d
582, 590 (Ct. App. 1990). We will only
substitute our judgment for that of the jury's when the jury relies upon
evidence that is inherently or patently incredible. Id.
Whitish
was charged with possession of marijuana, cocaine and drug paraphernalia. Possession of a controlled substance
requires the jury to find that Whitish had the substances under her dominion or
control. State v. Allbaugh,
148 Wis.2d 807, 813-14, 436 N.W.2d 898, 901 (Ct. App. 1989). The State must prove that she knew or
believed that she was possessing that substance. Poellinger, 153 Wis.2d at 508, 507 N.W.2d at
758. When a controlled substance is
found in an area over which Whitish exercised control and she intended to
possess the substance, then possession is established. Allbaugh, 148 Wis.2d at 814,
436 N.W.2d at 901-02.
Whitish
argues that the State failed to prove that she knowingly possessed the
marijuana, cocaine and drug paraphernalia because the car in which the
controlled substances were found belonged to the dealership and many
individuals had access to it before she used it. But it is the function of the jury, and not this court, to fairly
resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw
reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Poellinger, 153 Wis.2d at 506,
451 N.W.2d at 757. This is because the
jury is in the best position to attribute weight to nonverbal attributes of the
witnesses which may indicate guilt or innocence. Allbaugh, 148 Wis.2d at 809, 436 N.W.2d at 900.
The
jury heard testimony that Whitish was driving the car in which the marijuana,
cocaine and drug paraphernalia were found.
It knew that Whitish had a considerable amount of personal property in
the car, a fact which enhances the likelihood that this was Whitish's car, at
least for the time being. It also heard
testimony that she was agitated, nervous and did not take a blood test. The jury could have inferred that Whitish
did not want Officer Buchholtz to see into her car or to search it because she
knew it contained contraband. Because
Whitish testified, the jury had the opportunity to assess her credibility and
to view her demeanor, as well as consider the fact that she had been previously
convicted of a crime. Based upon this
evidence, we cannot conclude that the evidence was so lacking in probative
value that the jury unreasonably concluded that Whitish knowingly possessed the
marijuana, cocaine and drug paraphernalia.
We are reluctant to substitute our judgment for that of the jury's
especially when it has seen and heard a defendant testify. We conclude that the inferences drawn by the
jury are reasonable and, therefore, affirm the judgment of conviction.
By
the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
Not recommended for
publication. See Rule
809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.