Can Utah courts convict on circumstantial evidence of drug possession? State v. Naranjo Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in State v. Naranjo reinforced important principles about sufficiency of evidence challenges and constructive possession of controlled substances. The case arose from a bizarre early morning incident where Naranjo was caught stealing fee envelopes from a state park self-pay box and subsequently engaged in a low-speed pursuit with police while disposing of contraband.

Background and Facts

An angler at Willard Bay State Park observed Naranjo using sticky implements to steal fee envelopes from a payment box around 5:00 a.m. When police arrived, they found Naranjo with two others in what appeared to be a drug transaction. After the officer signaled for Naranjo to stop, he engaged in evasive maneuvers around the parking lot, throwing items from his vehicle including plastic baggies and envelope pieces. Officers later found methamphetamine in a heart-stamped baggie in the parking lot, along with similar baggies in Naranjo’s car containing his identification card.

Key Legal Issues

Naranjo challenged his convictions on two grounds. First, he argued the evidence was insufficient to prove he knowingly received the officer’s signal to stop and intentionally fled, and that he constructively possessed the methamphetamine found outside his vehicle. Second, he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request unanimity instructions regarding which specific acts constituted the charged offenses.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed both convictions, applying the standard that appellate courts will uphold verdicts when “some evidence” supports the jury’s findings. For the failure to stop charge, the court found multiple signals established Naranjo’s knowledge and intent, particularly the activation of the patrol truck’s lightbar in the mostly empty parking lot. Regarding drug possession, the court emphasized that circumstantial evidence can support constructive possession when it establishes a sufficient nexus between the defendant and contraband. The court noted Naranjo’s incriminating behavior of throwing baggies, his identification card found with similar contraband, and matching heart-stamp designs on baggies found in multiple locations.

Practice Implications

This decision highlights that constructive possession can be established through circumstantial evidence showing dominion and control over contraband, even when found outside the defendant’s immediate physical possession. The court’s analysis of the unanimity instruction issue demonstrates that specific unanimity instructions may be unnecessary when the most obvious evidence would subsume any jury disagreement about alternative theories. For practitioners, the case underscores the high bar for sufficiency challenges and the importance of developing alternative theories at trial rather than relying solely on appellate review.