United States v. Quintanar

150 F.3d 902 (1998) United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 1998-07-28

criminal; jury conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute; defendant challenges sufficiency of evidence on constructive possession; conviction reversed (result: claimant-lost)

Facts

  1. 3 Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) not no-evidence
    Quintanar then told her that there were drugs in the box, “[he] asked me just to give — just to turn the box over to him, not to destroy him.”
  2. 3 Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) not no-evidence
    Neither Quintanar’s name nor his address was on the box. He never touched it or handled it.
  3. 3 Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) not no-evidence
    The government’s case straightforwardly rests upon constructive possession. Therefore, for the jury to find Quintanar guilty, the government was required to prove that Quintanar intended to exercise dominion over the methamphetamine, that he had the power to exercise dominion, and that he.knew he had the power to exercise dominion.
  4. 3 Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) not no-evidence
    The government’s evidence fell short of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Quintanar had the power to exercise control or dominion over the drugs at any given time.
  5. 3 Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) not no-evidence
    Connett was not acting on his behalf but at the direction of Hoffman.
  6. 3 Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) not no-evidence
    But before Quintanar could assert dominion or control of the package it was physically removed from the possession of Macias and taken to the police station.
  7. 3 Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) not no-evidence
    “[T]he essence of constructive possession is not direct, physical control, but the ability to reduce an object to actual possession; otherwise, constructive possession would have no meaning at all- It is enough if one person is sufficiently associated with another having physical possession that he is able to produce a controlled substance for a customer.”