Utomi v. State
243 S.W.3d 75, 2007 WL 1953898 (2007)
Rule of Law:
When a defendant is not in exclusive possession of the place where contraband is found, the State must establish independent facts and circumstances (a 'link') connecting the defendant to the contraband to prove knowing possession and intent to deliver, which can be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence.
Facts:
- In November 2004, Houston Police Officer C. Riggs was investigating narcotics complaints and working with confidential informant Michelle Johnson regarding drug dealing at an apartment at 9445 Concourse in Southwest Houston.
- On November 8, 2004, Officer Riggs arranged a controlled buy, providing Johnson with $50, and Johnson then purchased $50 worth of crack cocaine from Victor Koadinita Utomi at the apartment.
- Johnson described the man who sold her the drugs to Officer Riggs as a black male approximately 6'1" to 6'3" tall and weighing 200 to 230 pounds.
- On November 9, 2004, Officer Riggs obtained a search warrant for the apartment, describing the unknown black male seller.
- On November 10, 2004, Officer Riggs and a team of police officers executed the search warrant, finding Victor Koadinita Utomi alone in the apartment, asleep on the living room floor.
- During the search, officers found a small amount of marijuana in an envelope next to Utomi, flakes of marijuana about the apartment, approximately 35 grams of cocaine inside a kitchen cabinet next to the sink, and a small amount of PCP inside the refrigerator.
- Victor Koadinita Utomi stated that the cocaine and PCP did not belong to him and that he was unaware of their presence.
- Officer Riggs found clothing in the living room, bedroom, and bedroom closet that appeared to be Utomi’s size.
- Alicia Kadiri, the apartment's lessee, testified that Victor Koadinita Utomi was an acquaintance who came to her apartment to rest early on November 10, and that her boyfriend, Saboo (nicknamed 'Boo'), who matched Johnson's description of the seller, also frequented the apartment.
- Kadiri also stated that she frequently had large groups of people over, had retrieved items from the cabinet where cocaine was found on the evening of November 9 without seeing any cocaine, and three individuals had visited between then and the search warrant's execution.
Procedural Posture:
- Victor Koadinita Utomi was indicted for the offense of possession of a controlled substance in an amount over four grams and less than 200 grams with intent to deliver.
- A jury found Victor Koadinita Utomi guilty.
- The indictment included enhancement paragraphs for two prior felony convictions.
- The trial court found both enhancement paragraphs true and assessed Victor Koadinita Utomi's punishment at 40 years’ confinement.
- Victor Koadinita Utomi appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.), arguing that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to prove he possessed cocaine with intent to deliver, and that the trial court made an improper comment during voir dire.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does legally and factually sufficient evidence exist to prove that Victor Koadinita Utomi possessed cocaine with the intent to deliver, even though he was not in exclusive possession of the apartment where the drugs were found?
Opinions:
Majority - Evelyn V. Keyes, Justice
Yes, legally and factually sufficient evidence exists to prove that Victor Koadinita Utomi possessed cocaine with the intent to deliver, even though he was not in exclusive possession of the apartment where the drugs were found. The Court affirmed the conviction, applying the established 'link' factors to determine constructive possession and intent to deliver. The court considered the following connections: Utomi was present and alone in the apartment when police raided it; a confidential informant identified Utomi in court as the man who sold her crack cocaine from the apartment just days before the raid; clothing consistent with Utomi's size was found throughout the apartment, suggesting he resided there; a significant amount (35 grams, with a street value of approximately $3,500) of cocaine was found in plain view in a kitchen cabinet, an amount not consistent with personal use; other drugs (marijuana next to him, PCP in refrigerator) were also found; and there was no paraphernalia for personal crack cocaine consumption found in the apartment. The court rejected Utomi's argument that the informant's testimony should be disregarded for sufficiency review, clarifying that the informant corroboration standard is distinct from the overall legal and factual sufficiency review, where all admissible evidence is considered. The court deferred to the jury's role as the sole judge of the weight and credibility of conflicting evidence, such as Kadiri's testimony about other visitors and Utomi's denial of drug ownership, finding that the jury was free to discredit contradictory testimony and conclude that Utomi possessed the cocaine with intent to deliver.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the application of 'link' factors for establishing constructive possession of controlled substances when the accused is not in exclusive control of the premises. It clarifies that informant testimony, while requiring corroboration for its own sufficiency under specific statutory provisions, is fully considered when evaluating the overall legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. The decision underscores the significant deference appellate courts give to jury findings on witness credibility and the logical force of circumstantial evidence in drug possession and intent-to-deliver cases, particularly when multiple 'linking' factors are present.
