STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROBERT CLYDE HANSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-691 / 06-1907
Filed November 15, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ROBERT CLYDE HANSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County, Lawrence H.
Fautsch, Judge.
Robert Hanson appeals from the district court’s judgment and sentence for
failure to affix a drug tax stamp. AFFIRMED.
David Strand of Strand Law Office, Decorah, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney
General, and Andrew Vandermaaten, County Attorney for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
The State charged Robert Hanson with three drug-related crimes arising
out of the search of a home.
The State later agreed to dismiss two of the
charges and Hanson agreed to a trial on the minutes of testimony on the third
charge, failure to affix a drug tax stamp. See Iowa Code §§ 453B.3 and 453B.12
(2005). The district court found him guilty, and this appeal followed.
On appeal, Hanson (1) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the district court’s finding of guilt, and (2) makes a chain of custody
objection to certain evidence.
I. Sufficiency of the evidence. “The district court’s finding of guilt is binding
upon us unless we find there was not substantial evidence in the record to
support such a finding.” State v. Dalton, 674 N.W.2d 111, 116 (Iowa 2004).
Hanson argues the minutes of testimony failed to show he had exclusive
possession of the house that was searched and in which the drugs were found.
We disagree.
The minutes reveal that a confidential informant advised the
sheriff’s office of Hanson’s address. The only person found at the home on the
day of the search told officers she had “just stopped by to see Robert Hanson.”
Finally, Hanson admitted there were drugs at “his residence.” This amounts to
substantial evidence in support of a finding that Hanson had exclusive
possession of the home.
Hanson also argues that the minutes of testimony failed to show he was in
possession of marijuana found during the search.
Iowa Code §§ 453B.3,
453B.12. “If the premises on which [controlled] substances are found are in the
exclusive possession of the accused, knowledge of their presence on such
3
premises coupled with his ability to maintain control over such substances may
be inferred . . . .” State v. Carter, 696 N.W.2d 31, 39 (Iowa 2005) (quoting State
v. Reeves, 209 N.W.2d 18, 23 (Iowa 1973)).
We have already found substantial evidence of Hanson’s exclusive
possession of the house in which the drugs were found, leading to an inference
he had knowledge of and control over the marijuana. Additionally, as noted,
Hanson admitted he knew about the marijuana in his home. Specifically, he said
the marijuana was “ditch weed” and he used it as an air freshener. In light of
these admissions, a reasonable fact-finder did not simply have to rely on an
inference of knowledge and control. Finally, the additional minutes reveal that
“the bag containing the marijuana did not have a drug tax stamp.” This evidence
amounts to substantial evidence that Hanson possessed a marijuana bag that
was not affixed with a drug tax stamp.
II. Chain-of-custody objection. Preliminarily, the State asserts Hanson failed
to preserve error on his chain-of-custody objection. We agree with the State’s
assertion, as the objection was not raised in the district court and Hanson
stipulated to the contents of the minutes of testimony. See State v. Brown, 656
N.W.2d 355, 360-61 (Iowa 2003) (“Generally a stipulation to the admission of
testimony at trial constitutes a waiver of any objection to the testimony raised
prior to trial.”). Although, in Brown, the court found an exception to the error
preservation rule notwithstanding a stipulation to the minutes, we note that Brown
raised pretrial objections to the challenged testimony and did not “affirmatively
and specifically consent” to the admission of the challenged testimony.
N.W.2d at 362. As noted, no such objections were made by Hanson.
656
4
We affirm Hanson’s judgment and sentence for failure to affix a drug tax
stamp.
AFFIRMED.
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.
