PEOPLE OF MI V TERRELL EUGENE WALKER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 22, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 286553
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 08-001004-FH
TERRELL EUGENE WALKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Fort Hood, P.J., and Sawyer and Donofrio, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial conviction for possession of
methamphetamine/Ecstasy, MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(i). Defendant was sentenced to eighteen
months to ten years’ imprisonment. We affirm. This appeal has been decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support his
conviction of possession of methamphetamine/Ecstasy, MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(i).1 We disagree.
When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, this Court reviews the record de novo in the
light most favorable to the prosecutor and determines whether a rational trier of fact could find
that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Contempt
of Henry, 282 Mich App 656, 677; 765 NW2d 44 (2009). In reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence, this Court “must not interfere with the jury’s role as the sole judge of the facts.”
People v Meshell, 265 Mich App 616, 619; 696 NW2d 754 (2005).
Defendant argues that the prosecutor failed to present legally sufficient evidence to
support his conviction of possession of methamphetamine/Ecstasy beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defendant claims that the fact that defendant did not own the vehicle and defendant was the
passenger most of the night proves that he did not have knowledge of the drugs within the
vehicle. No fingerprints were found on the bag. As such, defendant argues that his mere
1
Defendant also argued there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction on an aiding and
abetting theory. However, this argument is misplaced as defendant was not charged with, nor
was the jury instructed, on an aiding and abetting theory.
-1-
proximity to where the drugs were found is not sufficient to prove actual or constructive
possession. We disagree.
To establish possession, the prosecution must establish: (1) dominion or right of control
over the controlled substance and (2) knowledge of the controlled substance’s presence and
character. Id. at 621. Possession may be either actual or constructive, and it may be joint or
exclusive. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 520; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), amended 441 Mich 1201
(1992). The defendant’s mere presence where the controlled substance is found is not sufficient
to establish possession. There must be an additional connection between the defendant and the
controlled substance. Id. at 520.
Possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence, and the jury may draw reasonable
inferences from the evidence. People v Nunez, 242 Mich App 610, 615-616; 619 NW2d 550
(2000). There are five factors that can assist the jury in making its determination: (1) the
accessibility or proximity of the illegal item to the defendant; (2) the defendant’s awareness that
the illegal item was present; (3) the defendant’s possession of items that connect him to the
illegal item; (4) the defendant’s ownership or operation of the vehicle or dwelling place; and (5)
the length of time during which the defendant drove or occupied the vehicle or dwelling place.
People v Butler, 413 Mich 377, 390, n 11; 319 NW2d 540 (1982).
In this case, in looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and
in determining whether a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime
were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence is sufficient to convict defendant of
possession of methamphetamine/Ecstasy. The totality of the circumstances creates a sufficient
nexus between defendant and the methamphetamine/Ecstasy. Defendant acknowledged his
presence in the vehicle for approximately one and a half hours, from 9:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m.
prior to being pulled over. Additionally, defendant was seen lifting his arms toward the driver’s
side sun visor while he was in the driver’s seat as the police were approaching the vehicle. Soon
thereafter, the police found the methamphetamine/Ecstasy when it fell from the driver’s side sun
visor onto the driver’s side seat. A rational jury could infer from defendant’s driving of the
vehicle, his movements in the vehicle, his accessibility to the drugs and his proximity to them
that defendant knew of the presence of methamphetamine/Ecstasy and/or that defendant had full
access to the methamphetamine/Ecstasy while in the vehicle. “It is for the trier of fact, not the
appellate court, to determine what inferences may be fairly drawn from the evidence and to
determine the weight to be accorded those inferences.” People v Hardiman, 466 Mich 417, 428;
646 NW2d 158 (2002). Here, a reasonable jury would be able to conclude that defendant
possessed the methamphetamine/Ecstasy.
Affirmed.
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
-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.