Find Court Cases > State Of Washington, Respondent V. Ronald Kinswa, Appellant

State Of Washington, Respondent V. Ronald Kinswa, Appellant

Case Date: 04/03/2012
Court: Court of Appeals Division II
Docket No: 42063-5

 
DO NOT CITE. SEE GR 14.1(a).


Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

Docket Number: 42063-5
Title of Case: State Of Washington, Respondent V. Ronald Kinswa, Appellant
File Date: 04/03/2012

SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
Appeal from Lewis County Superior Court
Docket No: 10-1-00325-2
Judgment or order under review
Date filed: 04/27/2011
Judge signing: Honorable Nelson E Hunt

JUDGES
------
Authored byDavid H. Armstrong
Concurring:Jill Johanson
Marywave Van Deren

COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------

Counsel for Appellant(s)
 Peter B. Tiller  
 The Tiller Law Firm
 Po Box 58
 Centralia, WA, 98531-0058

Counsel for Respondent(s)
 Sara I Beigh  
 Lewis County Prosecutors Office
 345 W Main St Fl 2
 Chehalis, WA, 98532-4802
			

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                        DIVISION II

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
                             Respondent,                         No.  42063-5-II

       v.                                                  UNPUBLISHED OPINION

RONALD KINSWA,
                             Appellant.

       Armstrong, J.  --  A jury found  Ronald Kinswa guilty of possession of a controlled 

substance in violation of RCW 69.50.4013(1).      Kinswa appeals, arguing that the evidence is 

insufficient to support his conviction.  We disagree and affirm.

                                            FACTS

       On June 6, 2010, Deputy Sheriff Matt Schlecht stopped Kinswa after Kinswa left his 

house after a fight with his girlfriend.  He was stopped because of a broken windshield and a dirty 

license plate on the truck he was driving.  Kinswa provided the deputy with a Washington State 

identification card, and told him he was not sure if his license was valid.  The deputy determined 

that Kinswa's license had been suspended and he placed Kinswa under arrest for driving with a 

suspended license.  

       Deputy Schlecht searched Kinswa incident to the arrest and found folded cash in Kinswa's 

left front pocket. As the deputy was unfolding the bills he found a small plastic zip lock baggie 

containing white crystal residue, later determined to be methamphetamine.

       Kinswa testified that he had given his girlfriend a $100 bill so she could go to the liquor 

store.  Upon her return he asked for the change from the bill so he could put gas in his truck.  She  

No.  40378-1-II

gave him the money and he put it in his pocket without looking at it further.  He then left the 

house and got a ride with a friend to the pick-up truck he was driving when stopped by Deputy 

Schlecht.

       Kinswa testified that he told Deputy Schlecht the drugs were not his and he had not seen 

the baggie and did not know it was in the money folded in his pocket.   He stated the reason for 

the end of his relationship with his girlfriend was because of her methamphetamine use, and he 

had not seen her since August 2010.

       At trial, Kinswa argued the affirmative defense of unwitting possession, claiming he did 

not know he possessed a controlled substance.  The jury found Kinswa guilty of possession of a 

controlled substance.

                                          ANALYSIS

       Kinswa argues insufficient evidence supports his conviction.    Evidence is sufficient to 

support a conviction if, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact 

could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  State v. Salinas, 119 

Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992).  An insufficiency claim admits the truth of the State's 

evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom.  Salinas, 119 Wn.2d at 201.

       To establish Kinswa's guilt, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he

possessed a controlled substance.  RCW 69.50.4013(1).        Kinswa argues, however, that  he 

possessed the methamphetamine unwittingly.  To establish this defense, Kinswa had to prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the possession of the unlawful substance is unwitting. State v 

Wiley, 70 Wn. App. 852, 860, 602 P.2d 1304 (1979).       This defense is supported by showing 

either the defendant did not know he possessed the controlled substance or that the defendant did 

                                               2 

No.  40378-1-II

not know the nature of the substance he possessed.    State v. Staley, 123 Wn.2d 794, 799, 872 

P.2d 502 (1994).  Kinswa conceded that he knew the baggie contained methamphetamine but 

maintains he did not know he possessed the baggie containing the methamphetamine.  Kinswa's 

defense rested on his testimony that he had no knowledge the folded money contained the baggie 

of methamphetamine.    But we defer to the trier of fact -- in this  case, the jury -- on issues of 

witness credibility and the persuasiveness of evidence.  State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 874-75, 

83 P.3d 970 (2004).  In this case, the jury observed Kinswa's testimony, assessed his demeanor, 

measured his credibility, and found his defense of unwitting possession unconvincing in light of 

the evidence against him.  We will not disturb this determination on appeal.

       Viewed in the light   most favorable to the State, the evidence supports the jury's 

conclusion that Kinswa constructively possessed a controlled substance in violation of RCW 

69.50.4013(1). 

       We affirm. 

       A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so 

ordered.

                                                 Armstrong, P.J.
We concur:

________________________________________
Van Deren, J.

________________________________________
Johanson, J.

                                               3