June 6, 2019- State of New Mexico v. David McDaniel, No. A-1-CA-37889

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

—

1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 6/6/2019 10:44 AM

hh

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

=

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. NO. A-1-CA-37889
DAVID MCDANIEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY

Matthew E. Chandler, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Victor E. Sanchez, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
M. ZAMORA, Chief Judge.
4} Defendant appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of possession of a
controlled substance. [MIO 9] On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence offered at trial to establish that he knowingly possessed methamphetamine

that was found in the pocket of a jacket he was wearing at the time of his arrest. [DS

ark at

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

2] This Court issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm.
[CN 4] Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition to that proposed disposition.
Having duly considered that memorandum, we remain unpersuaded and affirm.

23 Inhismemorandum in opposition to summary affirmance, Defendant continues
to assert that the State did not prove that he knew what was in the pocket of the jacket
he was wearing. [MIO 12-13] Because he asserts that the jacket was borrowed,
Defendant implies that this case involves constructive possession, rather than actual
possession. [See MIO 14 (citing constructive possession cases)] In doing so,
Defendant argues that the State merely established his proximity to the contraband
without showing any relationship between himself and the contents of the jacket
pocket. [Id.] This analysis overlooks the fact that the contraband was found on
Defendant’s person, and not merely in his proximity. And, in any event, it is the role
of the jury—and not this Court—to weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of
witnesses. As our calendar notice pointed out, the jury was free to reject Defendant’s
claim that the jacket was borrowed. [CN 3 (citing State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001,
q 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829)] As a result, Defendant’s own testimony does not
provide this Court with any basis upon which we could reverse the jury’s findings

regarding his knowledge.

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17
18

3} Defendant’s memorandum also asserts, for the first time in this appeal, that the
State’s evidence did not establish that the crystalline substance tested was the same
crystalline substance found on his person. [MIO 10-11] This argument is apparently
based upon the fact that a lab report prepared in connection with this case lists the
defendant as “David McDonald.” [MIO 7] It also appears, however, that there was
testimony related to chain-of-custody procedures sufficient to establish that the
sample tested was the same substance found on Defendant’s person. [MIO 8-12] The
lab report included the arresting officer’s name and agency, as well as the date of
Defendant’s arrest and a case number. [MIO 5, 8] And the arresting officer also
testified that he recognized the blue ziplock bag containing the methamphetamine that
had been tested as the same bag that was found on Defendant. [MIO 6, 12] Thus,
there appears to have been evidence from which the jury could rationally find that the
substance tested was the same substance found on Defendant.

{4 Accordingly, for the reasons stated here and in our notice of proposed summary

disposition, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

3} ITISSO ORDERED. L\ \

M. MONICA ZAMO hief Judge

1
WE CONCUR:
2
Julio Vargas
3
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge
4 5
SALAR
JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge
4