Summary 2007 WY 143

Summary of Decision issued September 7, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Shumaker v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 143

Docket Number: 06-33

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Tina N. Kerin, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Issue: Whether there was insufficient evidence to convict appellant of possession of a controlled substance, marijuana, with intent to deliver, where the evidence presented during trial revealed that appellant possessed seeds and stems.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant was convicted by a jury of possessing marijuana with intent to deliver.
Standard of Review: The Court examines and accepts as true the State’s evidence and all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from it. They determine whether a jury could have reasonably concluded each of the elements of the crime was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The definition of marijuana set out in § 35-7-1002(a)(xiv) was the focus of Appellant’s argument. He claimed the State had the burden of proving that the stems and seeds recovered from his home were not excluded by definition. The State argued Appellant had the obligation to prove the substances fell within the exemption. The Court considered the record and concluded it was unnecessary to decide which party had the burden of proof. Instead they concluded there was sufficient circumstantial evidence that Appellant possessed illegal marijuana to sustain the conviction. The Court noted that in Urrutia v. State, they held that the prosecution may rely on circumstantial evidence to prove the identity of the controlled substance.

Holding: When the stems and seeds are considered together with the other evidence, including the paraphernalia and Appellant’s admissions, it was obvious sufficient circumstantial evidence existed to allow the jury to conclude that Appellant had possessed marijuana in violation of Wyoming statutes.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2r75cp .