STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MELISSA ANN DUKES, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-754 / 09-0062
Filed October 21, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MELISSA ANN DUKES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, David M. Remley,
Judge.
Melissa Dukes appeals from her conviction of gathering where controlled
substances unlawfully used in violation of Iowa Code section 124.407 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Martha Lucey, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant
Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Jerry Vander Sanden,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mansfield, J., and Zimmer, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2009).
2
MANSFIELD, J.
Melissa Dukes appeals from her conviction of gathering where controlled
substances unlawfully used in violation of Iowa Code section 124.407 (2007).
The case was tried by stipulation on the minutes of testimony. On appeal Dukes
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On January 23, 2008, Dukes was charged with gathering where controlled
substances unlawfully used in violation of Iowa Code section 124.407.
The
minutes of testimony stated:
[O]n January 14, 2008, Cedar Rapids police officers and other
agencies executed a search warrant at 5537 North Town Place NE
# 1 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. This is the residence of Melissa Ann
Dukes and Thomas Ray Reinhart. Upon entering the residence
officers found a large number of items associated with the
manufacture or use of methamphetamine. Items found included a
bag with batteries that had been peeled which are then used in the
manufacture of methamphetamine. A meth pipe was found on a
bedroom table by investigator Faircloth. A baggie with residue was
found in a bedroom by investigator Faircloth. She also found a
silver digital scale with residue. Tubing, foil and a meth pipe and an
orange fabric holder were found in a closet by Officer Wery. In
addition four batteries and filters were found. Batteries contain
lithium which is used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.
Coleman fuel, mixing spoons, plastic ware, rubber gloves and 2 liter
bottles were located in a vehicle by DEA Officer Yount. Officers
[will] further testify as to other items related to drug use that were
found at the residence and which are documented in the reports.
Officers interviewed both defendants, Melissa Dukes and Thomas
Ray Reinhart. Both defendants admitted that their residence had
been used as a place for the smoking of methamphetamine by
themselves and others. These witnesses will testify to further facts
and details regarding this case and to the statements and
admissions made by defendants and the items of evidence
gathered in the search warrant.
Following a suppression hearing and a denial of her motion to suppress,
Dukes waived her right to a jury trial and proceeded to a bench trial on a
3
stipulated record that included the trial information and minutes of testimony. On
April 4, 2008, the district court found Dukes guilty as charged. On May 27, 2008,
the district court deferred judgment and sentence, placed Dukes on probation for
three years, and ordered Dukes to pay a civil penalty of $750. However, Dukes
continued to use methamphetamine and did not complete the required treatment
programs.
On January 5, 2009, the district court revoked Dukes‟s deferred
judgment and entered a guilty verdict. Dukes was sentenced to five years in
prison. Dukes appeals and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.
II. Standard of Review.
We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for correction of
errors at law. State v. Jorgensen, 758 N.W.2d 830, 834 (Iowa 2008). “The
district court‟s findings of guilt are binding on appeal if supported by substantial
evidence. Evidence is substantial if it would convince a rational trier of fact the
defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. In conducting our review, we
consider all the evidence, not just the evidence that supports the verdict. State v.
Henderson, 696 N.W.2d 5, 7 (Iowa 2005). “We review the evidence in the light
most favorable to the State, including legitimate inferences and presumptions
that may fairly reasonable be deduced from the evidence in the record.” State v.
Webb, 648 N.W.2d 72, 76 (Iowa 2002); State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 377
(Iowa 1998).1
1
Although we have before us the same minutes of testimony that were before the trial
court, this does not affect our standard of review, which as noted involves deference to
the trial court‟s role as finder of fact. See State v. Adams, 554 N.W.2d 686, 691 (Iowa
1996) (applying the “substantial evidence” standard when reviewing a case tried on the
minutes of testimony). Thus, the issue is not whether we believe guilt has been proved
beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether a rational trier of fact could so find. Also,
although other evidence was presented at the suppression hearing (generally, in our
4
III. Analysis.
The elements of this crime as applied to Dukes are (1) Dukes aided,
promoted, or sponsored, or assisted in the sponsoring or promoting of (2) an
assemblage, gathering, or meeting (3) with the knowledge or intent that a
controlled substance be there distributed, used, or possessed. Iowa Code §
124.407; State v. Carter, 582 N.W.2d 164, 166 (Iowa 1998). Dukes challenges
the first two elements, arguing that the minutes are insufficient to show she
promoted or sponsored a gathering.
“„Promote‟ means to move forward or
further an enterprise. „Sponsor‟ commonly means to assume responsibility for.”
Carter, 582 N.W.2d at 166. A gathering is a coming together of two or more
persons in one place, usually for a common purpose.
See Iowa Crim. Jury
Instructions 2320.2 (defining sponsoring, promoting, or aiding a gathering); see
also Carter, 582 N.W.2d at 166 (stating that the use of the words meeting,
gathering, or assemblage in the statute “encompass[es] small groups of people
as well as large congregations of people”); State v. Bush, 518 N.W.2d 778, 780
(Iowa 1994) (“[A] reasonable, common, and ordinary definition of „within an
assembly of people‟ . . . is „into or through two or more persons at the same
place.‟”).
The minutes of testimony show Dukes and Reinhart were the residents of
an apartment located at 5537 North Towne Place NE. On January 14, 2008,
officers executed a search warrant at their residence, during which both Dukes
view, unfavorable to Dukes), neither party urges us to rely on that evidence and we
confine our review to the minutes themselves. See id. (noting “[a]lthough [the defendant]
cites to evidence introduced at the suppression hearing, for purposes of reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment of conviction, we confine our
consideration to the trial record”).
5
and Reinhart admitted to officers that their apartment was used as a place for
themselves and others to smoke methamphetamine. Throughout the apartment,
officers found numerous items used in the manufacture and use of
methamphetamine. These items included two methamphetamine pipes (one in a
closet and one in a bedroom), a plastic bag containing residue of
methamphetamine, a digital scale, “peeled” batteries, tubing, filters, foil, fuel,
mixing spoons, plastic ware, rubber gloves, and two-liter bottles.
Dukes argues that this is not substantial evidence that she promoted or
sponsored a gathering of persons who used methamphetamine. She points out
that the minutes do not show how the unidentified other persons came to be in
the apartment.
Perhaps they were uninvited.
She also argues that the
individuals who admittedly used methamphetamine in the apartment may have
done so individually and at different times. Perhaps there was no gathering.
However, to be sufficient, the evidence need not eliminate every possible theory
of innocence. Dukes‟s scenarios seem implausible, and a reasonable fact finder
could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Dukes and Reinhart jointly
possessed methamphetamine in the apartment, that they facilitated and
encouraged visits to the apartment, and that as a result of these visits at least
one gathering occurred where methamphetamine was distributed, used or
possessed by two or more persons.2
In summary, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence
was sufficient to find Dukes provided both her apartment and the illegal drugs so
2
The State does not argue that the unlawful gathering could consist of just Dukes and
Reinhart, and we are able to affirm without reaching that issue.
6
that a gathering of two or more persons therein could distribute, use, or possess
illegal drugs. See Carter, 582 N.W.2d at 167 (finding a defendant promoted or
sponsored a gathering where he provided the hotel room where drugs were used
and distributed); State v. Cartee, 577 N.W.2d 649, 653 (Iowa 1998) (finding a
defendant aided, promoted, or sponsored a gathering where he provided the
drugs that were consumed at the gathering as well as a place to smoke them).
Therefore, we affirm Dukes‟s conviction.
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.
