U.S. v. Young, 64 M.J. 404

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Art. 112a -- Wrongful Use, Possession, etc, of Controlled Substances Pre-2019 offenses

1. in order to convict an accused for distribution of marijuana, the prosecution must prove: (a) that the accused distributed a certain amount of a controlled substance; and (b) that the distribution by the accused was wrongful
2. viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and drawing every reasonable inference in favor of the prosecution, evidence was legally sufficient to establish appellant’s constructive possession of marijuana found by police in his cousin’s home, where appellant had possession of a brick of marijuana which he displayed to another individual after being introduced by his cousin, where appellant gathered items in the bedroom when he knew that the police were in his cousin’s house, where he threw a black duffel bag that yielded numerous bricks of marijuana into the closet, and where he tossed a light-colored bag across the room when the police opened the door and that bag contained marijuana; from this evidence, a reasonable factfinder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had a direct criminal relationship with, if not ownership of, the marijuana; evidence in the record indicates, or gives rise to an inference of, appellant’s dominion or control over the marijuana and drug related materials found in the bedroom of his cousin’s home
3. viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and drawing every reasonable inference in favor of the prosecution, evidence found when the police searched the home of appellant’s cousin was legally sufficient to establish that appellant distributed marijuana, where near a black duffel bag found on the couch, which contained appellant’s Crown Royal bag and a deposit slip, were several empty plastic bags that retained the shape of a brick of marijuana, where these empty plastic bags contained marijuana residue, where appellant’s Crown Royal bag contained five rolls of money, each in the identical amount of $1,100.00, where the price for marijuana in that region of Mississippi was between $900.00 and $1,100.00 a pound, and where two separate sets of scales, an item that can be reasonably associated with drug distribution, were found in the bedroom; the record supports a conclusion that appellant exercised dominion or control over drugs and drug-related materials found in the bedroom of his cousin’s home; further, it is entirely reasonable to conclude, based on the empty plastic bags, the marijuana residue in those bags, and the rolls of money in appellant’s Crown Royal bag, that appellant had completed a sale of marijuana before the police arrived

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Appellate Burdens, Standards, Etc. › Generally

1. in reviewing a case for legal sufficiency, an appellate court must determine whether, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable factfinder could have found all the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Appellate Presumptions, Inferences

1. in reviewing a case for legal sufficiency, an appellate court is bound to draw every reasonable inference from the evidence of record in favor of the prosecution

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. in reviewing a case for legal sufficiency, an appellate court must determine whether, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable factfinder could have found all the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt
2. in reviewing a case for legal sufficiency, an appellate court is bound to draw every reasonable inference from the evidence of record in favor of the prosecution
3. an appellate court reviews a question of legal sufficiency de novo as a question of law
4. issues of due process and whether constitutional error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt are reviewed by an appellate court de novo

Miscellaneous Matters: Speedy Trial: Post-Trial

1. in reviewing issues of post-trial and appellate delay, an appellate court first asks whether the particular delay is facially unreasonable; if it concludes that the delay is facially unreasonable, it then examines the following four factors: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the appellant’s assertion of the right to timely review and appeal; and (4) prejudice; if this analysis leads to the conclusion that an appellant has been denied the due process right to speedy post-trial review and appeal, it then grants relief unless it is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the constitutional error is harmless
2. although the delay of 1,637 days between the trial and completion of review at the court of criminal appeals was facially unreasonable, any denial of appellant’s due process right to speedy post-trial review and appeal was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where no merit was found in any other issue raised by appellant on appeal

Miscellaneous Matters: Multiplicity and Lesser Included Offenses: Lesser Included Offenses

1. where the facts demonstrate that the acts or quantities of contraband are distinct, separate convictions for both distribution and possession may be upheld
2. an accused may be separately convicted and punished for distributing a portion of a quantity of drugs and for possessing that portion he retains
3. in this case, the evidence supports the conclusion that appellant was convicted of distributing one quantity of marijuana and thereafter retaining (possessing) a distinct remaining quantity; possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute is not a lesser included offense of distributing marijuana, where the possession with the intent to distribute charge is based on 18 pounds of marijuana found in the bedroom of appellant’s cousin, and the distribution charge is based on empty plastic bags, marijuana residue in those bags, and the large quantity of cash found in appellant’s Crown Royal bag; the evidence supports an inference that appellant had completed a marijuana transaction before law enforcement entered the premises and discovered the remaining 18 pounds of marijuana; because the evidence supports a factfinder’s conclusion that the marijuana appellant was charged with possessing was not the same marijuana that he was charged with distributing, the offenses do not stand as greater and lesser included offenses, and both findings of guilty may stand

Miscellaneous Matters: Statutes, Treaties, Regulations, Executive Orders, Directives, etc.: Generally

1. in construing the language of a rule, it is generally understood that the words should be given their common and approved usage