State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-0334

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Stephen Wayne Howard,
Appellant.

Filed January 3, 2022
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Beltrami County District Court
File No. 04-CR-20-1412

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

David Hanson, Beltrami County Attorney, Wesley Van Ert, Assistant County Attorney,
Bemidji, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Pub lic Defender, Suzanne M. Senecal-Hill,
Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Florey, Pres iding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Bryan,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
WORKE, Judge
Appellant challenges his first-degree controlled-substance-crime conviction,
arguing that the state failed to prove that he possessed the controlled substance. We affirm.
2
FACTS
In the evening of May 18, 2020, an individu al called the police to report that a male
in a vehicle at a store parking lot appear ed to have overdosed. The caller reported
observing drug paraphernalia in the vehicle.
A responding officer saw the male slumped over in the dr iver’s seat. The officer
recognized him from previous law-enforcem ent encounters as appellant Stephen Wayne
Howard. The officer knocked on the window and Howard woke up. The officer noticed
“tinfoil on the center console an d also a micro-baggie with . . . a white substance on it.”
The officer observed that Howa rd’s eyes were bloodshot a nd glassy, his pupils were
constricted, and his eyelids we re droopy. Howard’s speech was accelerated, and he was
having a difficult time keeping hi s arms and hands still. Howard told the officer that he
was cold, but the officer observed that Howard was sweating. Based on these observations,
the officer believed that Howard was under the influence of a controlled substance.
The officer told Howard th at he saw the tinfoil on the center console, and Howard
“threw the vehicle into drive, rapidly accelerated causing the tires to break loose and squeal,
and sped away.” Officers pursu ed Howard as he sped thro ugh town, ran red lights, and
nearly struck a group of pedestrians before reaching an obstruction in a backyard.
Howard exited his vehicle and officers secu red him. Officers searched Howard and
found $2,000 in one of his pockets. Howard stated something to the effect of “I’m so doped
out lately. I don’t even know what I’m f’ing doing.” Howard was transported to jail where
he refused chemical testing.
3
Officers searched the vehi cle and found heroin in several areas. Between the
driver’s seat and center console officers found a baggie containing a brown granular
substance. On the “floor by Mr. Howard’s feet in the driver’s seat” officers found a
Pringles can with a hidden compartment that held a sandwich bag containing a brown
granular substance that weighed 30 grams. In the backseat officers found an Arizona Tea
can with a hidden compartment that held a substance that weighed 37.582 grams. Officers
also found a baggie containing a rock-like substance, a baggie containing a brown granular
substance, a tinfoil bindle containing a white powdery substance, and pipes for inhaling a
controlled substance. Office rs found tinfoil and a pen cut in half, which can be drug
paraphernalia, inside a purse found in the tr unk. The substance found in the Arizona Tea
can was submitted for analysis and tested positive for containing heroin.
Howard was charged with first-degree possessi on of 25 grams or more of heroin,
fleeing a peace officer, and refusal to submit to a chemical test. See Minn. Stat. §§ 152.021,
subd. 2(a)(3); 609.487, subd. 3; 169A.25, subd. 1(b) (2018). A jury found Howard guilty
as charged. The district court sentenced Ho ward to 75 months in prison. This appeal
followed.
DECISION
Howard argues that the evid ence is insufficient to support his controlled-substance-
crime conviction. In reviewing this claim, we analyze the record to determine whether the
evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the
jury to reach the ve rdict that it did. State v. Webb , 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).
4
We assume that “the jury be lieved the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to
the contrary.” State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).
The jury found Howard guilty of first-degree possession of 25 grams or more of
heroin. See Minn. Stat. § 152.021, subd. 2(a)(3). Ho ward argues that the state failed to
prove that he possessed the controlled substa nce because other individuals had access to
the vehicle in which it was found.
To establish possession of a controlled substa nce, “the state must prove that [the]
defendant consciously possessed, either physically or constructively, the substance and that
[the] defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.” State v. Florine, 226
N.W.2d 609, 610 (Minn. 1975 ). Physical possession involves “direct physical control.”
State v. Barker, 888 N.W.2d 348, 353 (Minn. App. 2016) (quotation omitted). Constructive
possession applies when there exists a strong inference that the defendant, although not in
direct physical control of the controlled su bstance, “at one time physically possessed the
substance and did not abandon his possessory interest in [it].” Florine, 226 N.W.2d at 610.
Constructive possession applies here because the controlled substance was found in a
hidden compartment in a beverage can found in the back of the vehicle.
Constructive possession may be established by proof that the item was in a place
under the defendant’s “exclusive control to which other people did not normally have
access,” or of a “strong probability” that the “defendant was at the time consciously
exercising dominion and control over it, even if the item was in a place to which others had
access.” Barker, 888 N.W.2d at 353-54 (quotation omitted). The defendant’s proximity
to an item is a relevant factor in establishing constructive possession. State v. Sam, 859
5
N.W.2d 825, 834 (Minn. App. 2015). “A de fendant may possess an item jointly with
another person.” State v. Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592, 601 (Minn. 2017).
To prove Howard’s constructive possession, the state used circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the [jury] can infer whether the facts in
dispute existed.” Id. at 599 (quotation omitted). “Circu mstantial evidence must form a
complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the
defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than
guilt.” State v. Taylor, 650 N.W.2d 190, 206 (Minn. 2002).
We apply a heightened standard of review when presented with a challenge to the
circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction. State v. Porte , 832 N.W.2d 303, 309
(Minn. App. 2013). This review requires application of a two-step test. State v. Silvernail,
831 N.W.2d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013). First, we identify the circumstances proved. State v.
Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320, 329 (Minn. 2010). In doing so, we defer “to the jury’s
acceptance of the proof of these circumstances” and its rejection of evidence that conflicted
with these circumstances. Id. Second, we examine “the r easonableness of all inferences
that might be drawn from the circumstances proved,” including “inferences consistent with
a hypothesis other than guilt.” Id. (quotation omitted). During this independent
examination, we do not defer to the jury’s choice among reasonable inferences. Loving v.
State, 891 N.W.2d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).
The circumstances proved include: (1) a citizen reported a possible overdose;
(2) Howard was found slumped over in the driver’s seat; (3) an officer recognized Howard
from previous encounters; (4) Howard exhi bited signs of controlled-substance use;
6
(5) Howard fled when an officer told Howard that he noticed tinfoil and a white substance
on the center console; (6) once stopped Howard stated that he was “s o doped out lately”;
(7) officers found $2,000 on Howard; (8) o fficers found controlled substances and drug
paraphernalia in the vehicle; (9) officers foun d a Pringles can on the floor in the driver’s
seat that had a suspected controlled substance in a hidden compartment; (10) officers found
an Arizona Tea can in the backseat that had heroin in a hidden compartment; (11) Howard
was the only person in the vehicle; (12) although Howard was not the registered owner of
the vehicle, an officer had prior contacts w ith Howard in the vehi cle; and (13) Howard
previously stated that the ve hicle “was his or he owned th e car.” These circumstances
proved establish that Howard constructively possessed the heroin in the Arizona Tea can.
Howard argues that the circumstances proved do not rule out the hypothesis that he
did not possess the heroin because the Arizona Tea can was not found in plain sight or in
an area within his reach. He also claims that there was no forens ic evidence connecting
him to the Arizona Tea can. But the evidence does not suppo rt a conclusion that the
Arizona Tea can was not found in plain sight. An office r’s body camera footage shows
that the officer found the Arizona Tea can in the backseat among many items—it may have
been covered by another item, but it was not hi dden. And the smaller size of the vehicle
does not eliminate the possibility that the Arizona Tea can was within Howard’s reach from
the driver’s seat. Even though there is no forensic evidence showing that Howard handled
the Arizona Tea can, he was the sole occupant of the vehicle, and possession can be joint.
Howard suggests that the Arizona Tea can could have been found in a purse, but the purse
was found in the trunk, and the Arizona Tea can was found in the backseat. While an
7
officer did search a tote bag that was in the backseat, it does not appear from the officer’s
body camera footage that the Arizona Tea can was removed from the tote bag.
Even if it was possible that the Ariz ona Tea can belonged to someone else,
“possibilities of innocence do not require reversal of a jury verdict so long as the evidence
taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable.” State v. Stein, 776 N.W.2d 709,
719 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted). The evidence here, especially the fact that Howard
was the sole occupant of the vehicle and the Arizona Tea can and the Pringles can, which
was found on the floor in the driver’s se at area, had similar hidden compartments
containing controlled substances, show that Howard, jointly or exclusively, constructively
possessed the controlled substance.
Affirmed.