PEOPLE OF MI V HAMMERSTEIN CAPLERA PATTERSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 20, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 290269
Washtenaw Circuit Court
LC No. 07-001166-FH
HAMMERSTEIN CAPLERA PATTERSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: DAVIS, P.J., AND DONOFRIO AND STEPHENS, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals by right his jury trial conviction of possession of less than 25 grams of
cocaine, MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v).1 Because the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to
support defendant’s conviction for cocaine possession, we affirm. This appeal has been decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant first argues that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to support
his convictions. He argues, in particular, that there was insufficient evidence to support a
conclusion that he possessed the cocaine. We review a defendant’s allegations regarding
insufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of
the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Herndon, 246 Mich App 371, 415;
633 NW2d 376 (2001). We will not interfere with the jury’s role of determining the weight of
the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 514-515; 489
NW2d 748, amended 441 Mich 1202 (1992). Satisfactory proof of the elements of the crime can
be shown by circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences arising therefrom. People v
Carines, 460 Mich 750, 757; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). It is for the trier of fact to determine what
inferences fairly can be drawn from the evidence and the weight to be accorded to those
inferences. People v Hardiman, 466 Mich 417, 428; 646 NW2d 158 (2002). All conflicts in the
evidence must be resolved in favor of the prosecution. People v Terry, 224 Mich App 447, 452;
569 NW2d 641 (1997).
1
The prosecutor charged defendant with possession with intent to deliver, but the jury found him
guilty of the lesser included offense.
-1-
To establish the elements of unlawful possession of less than 25 grams of cocaine, the
prosecution must show that (1) the defendant possessed a controlled substance, (2) the substance
possessed was cocaine, (3) the defendant knew he was possessing cocaine, and (4) the substance
was in a mixture that weighed less than 25 grams. MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v); see Wolfe, 440 Mich
at 516-517. A defendant does not need to own the controlled substance or have actual physical
possession of it when he is discovered to have “possession” of it. The controlled substance may
be constructively or jointly possessed. Id. at 519-520. Citing United States v Manzella, 791 F 2d
1263, 1266 (CA 7, 1986), our Supreme Court discussed the “dominion” or “control” necessary to
establish constructive possession in People v Konrad, 449 Mich 263; 536 NW2d 517 (1995):
In the foremost discussion of what is necessary to have dominion or
control over drugs, Judge Posner explained that a defendant “need not have them
literally in his hands or on premises that he occupies but he must have the right
(not the legal right, but the recognized authority in his criminal milieu) to possess
them, as the owner of a safe deposit box has legal possession of the contents even
though the bank has actual custody.” [Konrad, 449 Mich at 271, citing Manzella,
791 F 2d 1266.]
In the instant case, after reviewing the record and viewing the evidence in a light most
favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that sufficient evidence existed connecting defendant
to the cocaine found in the bedroom of the home. The police officer who conducted the search
of the home testified that defendant was present in the room where the baggies of cocaine lay in
a clothes basket “in plain sight” next to the bed where defendant slept. Police found only male
clothes in the room, and the officer’s testimony that they were approximately the size defendant
would wear allows for an inference that the clothing actually belonged to defendant. The fact
that the police also discovered a letter addressed to defendant in the bedroom supports an
inference that defendant resided in the home. Taken together, this evidence also supports a
reasonable inference that the room where the cocaine was found was actually defendant’s room.
The testimony that the cocaine was in plain sight when the officer discovered it further supports
a finding that defendant knew that the cocaine was in the room, and thus supported the jury’s
conclusion that defendant knowingly possessed the cocaine.
Considering the circumstantial evidence, the reasonable inferences arising therefrom, the
totality of the circumstances, and resolving all evidentiary conflicts in favor of the prosecution,
we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to show that defendant had dominion and control
over the cocaine found in the bedroom. Moreover, even if the evidence might also connect the
home’s other occupants to the drugs as well, “possession may be joint, with more than one
person actually or constructively possessing a controlled substance.” Wolfe, 440 Mich at 520.
Nor was the prosecutor required to disprove defendant’s assertion that he may have once lived at
the home but no longer did, that the owner of the home failed to forward his mail, and that he
had just returned for a visit. See People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000)
(“[T]he prosecutor need not negate every reasonable theory consistent with innocence.”).
Affirmed.
/s/ Alton T. Davis
/s/ Pat M Donofrio
/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens
-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.
