PEOPLE OF MI V QUINTRALL D LEE

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED February 2, 1999 Plaintiff-Appellee, v QUINTRALL D. LEE, No. 202991 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 96-147813 FH Defendant-Appellant. Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Bandstra and R. B. Burns*, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant was convicted by a jury of unlawful possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(iii); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(d)(iii). As a controlled substance second offender, defendant was subject to double penalty pursuant to MCL 333.7413(2); MSA 14.15(7413)(2). Defendant was sentenced to three to eight years’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals and we affirm. On appeal, defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because it did not establish that he possessed the marijuana in question. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a reasonable jury could have found that the elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Vronko, 228 Mich App 649, 654; 579 NW2d 138 (1998). A person may be convicted of possession of a controlled substance if he has either actual or constructive possession of it. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 519-520; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992). Constructive possession is established where the defendant had the right to exercise control over the controlled substance and knew that it was present. Id. at 520. Constructive possession exists when the totality of the circumstances indicates a sufficient nexus between the defendant and the contraband. Id. at 521. Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from the evidence are sufficient to establish possession. People v Fetterley, 229 Mich App 511, 515; 583 NW2d 199 (1998). * Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ In the present case, when the police arrived to execute the search warrant, defendant ran into the house where he was subsequently found in an unlit bedroom on the second floor with the door closed. Of the three individuals at the house at the time of the raid, defendant was the only person found upstairs. In the other upstairs bedroom where the marijuana was discovered, the police found several of defendant’s personal documents, including an application for food stamps, a billing statement from the sheriff’s department, a Michigan Identification card and a birth certificate all bearing defendant’s name and date of birth. The police also found adult male clothing, which matched defendant’s size. In addition, defendant’s girlfriend admitted that defendant had a key to the house, was at the house three or four days a week to see their young son, and that he slept with her in the bedroom in question several times a week. Testimony established that the police report indicated that defendant gave the house where the raid occurred as his address. Although defendant’s girlfriend testified that defendant did not live at the house, that she owned all the marijuana, that she was using defendant’s papers for child support purposes, and that the male clothing in the bedroom belonged to a different man, issues of witness credibility are properly resolved by the trier of fact. Wolfe, supra at 514-515. Viewing all of the above evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that defendant constructively possessed the marijuana found in the upstairs bedroom. Although defendant raised two other issues in his appeal brief, one issue was withdrawn and the other issue was conceded by defendant at oral argument. Affirmed. /s/ David H. Sawyer /s/ Richard A. Bandstra /s/ Robert B. Burns -2­

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.