NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION
MOORE, JUDGE.
Geoffrey Edwards appeals the Christian Circuit Court's judgment convicting him of manufacturing methamphetamine, first offense; first-degree possession of a controlled substance, first offense, methamphetamine; possession of marijuana; and possession of drug paraphernalia. After a careful review of the record, we affirm because the circuit court did not err in denying Edwards's motion for a directed verdict.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Edwards was indicted on charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, first offense; first-degree possession of a controlled substance, first offense, methamphetamine; possession of marijuana; and possession of drug paraphernalia. A jury trial was held, during which Edwards twice moved for a directed verdict, once at the close of the Commonwealth's case, and once at the close of the defense's case. The circuit court denied both motions.
The jury ultimately convicted Edwards on all counts. He was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment for his manufacturing methamphetamine conviction, one year of imprisonment for his possession of a controlled substance conviction, and he was given credit for time served for both his possession of marijuana and his possession of drug paraphernalia convictions. All of his sentences were ordered to run concurrently for a total sentence of ten years of imprisonment.
II. ANALYSIS
Edwards now appeals, contending that the circuit court erred when it denied his motions for a directed verdict.
On motion for [a] directed verdict, the trial court must draw all fair and reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the Commonwealth. If the evidence is sufficient to induce a reasonable juror to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, a directed verdict should not be given. For the purpose of ruling on the motion, the trial court must assume that the evidence for the Commonwealth is true, but reserving to the jury questions as to the credibility and weight to be given to such testimony.
On appellate review, the test of a directed verdict is, if under the evidence as a whole, it would be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find guilt, only then the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.
. . . [T]here must be evidence of substance, and the trial court is expressly authorized to direct a verdict for the defendant if the prosecution produces no more than a mere scintilla of evidence.
Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186, 187-88 (Ky. 1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
During trial, Wanda Medeiros testified that she owns a home, in which she does not reside, in Christian County. On the day in question, she received word that someone was at the house and she needed to check on it, so she went there to check on the house. When she arrived there, she saw Cyle Tutor in her driveway, as well as Edwards and his co-defendant, Timothy Case. Tutor was the former boyfriend of Ms. Medeiros's daughter. Tutor, Edwards, and Case were standing around a plastic tote in her driveway. After Ms. Medeiros exited her vehicle, she had strong words for Tutor, and Edwards and Case left on foot by running from the scene. Ms. Medeiros attested that as Edwards was running away, she saw something on his shoulder. She was surprised he could run the way he did because the thing on his shoulder was swinging. She called the police, and the dispatcher told her to go into her house until an officer arrived.
Joshua Martin, who also lived on Memory Lane, down the road from Ms. Medeiros, testified that on the evening in question, he was in his home when he saw headlights shine through his front window. Martin looked outside and saw a car parked in his neighbor's driveway close to the garage. He also saw three men run across his yard carrying large duffel bags. Martin went out to his driveway and saw the three men go down to the end of the road and climb into a parked car. They sat in the car for a couple of minutes, then drove down the street and parked in front of his house and turned off the car lights. A man got out of the passenger side of the car and went back to a tree in the area near where Martin had seen them running. The man picked up a large tote from near the tree and began carrying it to the car until another car turned in at the end of the road. When the man saw the other vehicle, he dropped the tote, ran back and climbed into the passenger side of the car.1 The police arrived soon thereafter.
Sergeant Ross Littlepage, who was employed by the Christian County Sheriff's Department, testified that when he arrived at the scene, for what had been described as a burglary-in-progress call, there was a car in the road at the end of Ms. Medeiros's driveway. He asked that the car be pulled back into the driveway, and he spoke with Tutor, who was standing outside the car, and other individuals who were in the car. He also spoke with Ms. Medeiros. Sergeant Littlepage testified that a brick had been thrown through a window in the house, and it slid across the floor and hit a wall. Tutor was the only person arrested for the burglary.
Robert Schneider, who was a canine officer for the Christian County Sheriff's Department, testified at trial.2 Deputy Schneider attested that because someone had stated that one of the three men had gone and placed something behind a tree, Deputy Schneider followed footsteps through the snow to the tree and found a tote behind the tree. Although he could not remember specifically what was inside the tote, Deputy Schneider testified that he did remember the tote contained items used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine.
Detective Jim Berghammer of the Christian County Sheriff's Department testified that he examined the tote Deputy Schneider found. Detective Berghammer stated that the items found in the tote are often used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. He attested that he was able to discern, based upon the specific items found in the tote, what method of manufacturing methamphetamine was intended to be used. He explained to the jury how each item found in the tote would be used in the manufacturing process. Detective Berghammer stated that once the canine alerted the officers to the vehicle, the vehicle was searched and a couple of backpacks were found, as well as marijuana pipes, syringes, and large quantities of new Ziploc bags. He attested that another bag found in the vehicle contained food items, personal hygiene items, and Ziploc bags. That bag was found in the vehicle's trunk.
Co-defendant Timothy Case testified that all three of the men had access to everything because it was all in the car with them.3 Case apparently provided a written statement after the three were brought in to the Sheriff's Department, but it does not appear the written statement is included in the record before us. However, Detective Berghammer read the statement aloud during trial, and in the statement, Case acknowledged that he brought the tote to Ms. Medeiros's house.
On appeal, Edwards argues that the Commonwealth failed to prove he had possession of the items at issue, and "possession" is an element of each of the crimes for which Edwards was convicted. See KRS4 218A.1432, KRS 218A.1415, KRS 218A.1422, and KRS 218A.500(2). Thus, Edwards contends that his motions for a directed verdict should have been granted.
"`Possession' sufficient to convict under the law need not be actual; a defendant may be shown to have had constructive possession by establishing that the contraband involved was subject to his dominion or control." Hargrave v. Commonwealth, 724 S.W.2d 202, 203 (Ky. 1986) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Kentucky Supreme Court has held that "the concept of `constructive possession' is applicable" to "offenses arising under KRS 218A." Houston v. Commonwealth, 975 S.W.2d 925, 928 (Ky. 1998).
The definition of "possession" that was provided in the jury instructions in this case was consistent with the definition of the term provided in Hargrave, supra: The jury instructions defined "possession" as: "Means to have actual physical possession or otherwise to exercise actual dominion or control over a tangible object."
It was reasonable in this case for the jury to find Edwards guilty of the crimes. Ms. Medeiros attested that as Edwards was running away, she saw something on his shoulder. She was surprised he could run the way he did because the thing on his shoulder was swinging. Joshua Martin testified that he saw three men run across his yard carrying large duffel bags. The men climbed into a car parked at the end of the street, then drove down the street, parked in front of his house, and turned off the car lights. Martin saw one of the men get out of the passenger side of the car and walk back to a tree in the area near where Martin had seen them running. The man picked up a large tote from near the tree and began carrying it to the car until another car turned in at the end of the road. When the man saw the other vehicle, he dropped the tote, ran back and climbed into the passenger side of the car. Detective Berghammer testified that the tote contained items used in one method of manufacturing methamphetamine. He stated that during the search of the vehicle, a couple of backpacks were found, as well as marijuana pipes, syringes, and large quantities of new Ziploc bags. Furthermore, co-defendant Timothy Case testified that all three of the men had access to everything because it was all in the car with them. Therefore, it was reasonable for the jury to convict Edwards of the charges, based upon his physical possession of the items or his exercise of dominion or control over them. Consequently, the circuit court did not err in denying Edwards's motions for a directed verdict.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Christian Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
