Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Iowa v. Brian Lee Hanson

March 7, 2011

STATE OF IOWA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
BRIAN LEE HANSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Timothy O'Grady, Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Vogel, J.

A defendant appeals from his convictions of delivery of a controlled substance, failure to affix a drug tax stamp, and ongoing criminal conduct. AFFIRMED.

Following a jury trial, Hanson was convicted of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) in violation of Iowa Code sections 124.401(1)(b)(7) (2009) (more than five grams) and 124.401(1)(c)(6) (five grams or less); failure to affix a drug tax stamp in violation of Iowa Code sections 453B.3 and 453B.12; and ongoing criminal conduct in violation of Iowa Code sections 706A.1(5), 706A.2(4), and 706A.4. Hanson appeals. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and asserts that the district court erred in instructing the jury on joint criminal conduct and aiding and abetting. Our review is for correction of errors at law. State v. Spies, 672 N.W.2d 792, 796 (Iowa 2003) (sufficiency of the evidence); State v. Kellogg, 542 N.W.2d 514, 516 (Iowa 1996) (jury instructions).

Hanson was charged with delivery of a controlled substance, failure to affix a tax stamp, and ongoing criminal conduct as either a principal or an aider and abettor.*fn1 The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that in January 2009, a confidential informant worked with police officers to conduct two controlled buys from Hanson. Before both of the buys, the informant met with police officers, was searched and given a digital audio recorder, which recorded and transmitted audio to the officers.

On January 13, 2009, the first controlled buy occurred. Before going to Hanson's house, the informant phoned Hanson and arranged to purchase five grams of methamphetamine for $500. The informant and Hanson negotiated a price, "80 cents for a hundred," which the informant and the State's expert witness testified that .08 gram is referred to as "80 cents." The officers dropped the informant off near Hanson's house and watched him go into Hanson's house. While the informant was inside Hanson's house, Scott Hart arrived at the house with methamphetamine. Prior to this, the informant did not know that Hart was going to be involved in the sale. The informant described the transaction,

[Hart] stepped inside the door, handed the drugs to [Hanson]. [Hanson] handed me the drugs. I gave [Hanson] the money. [Hanson] gave it to [Hart]. [Hart] never come all the way in. He took one step inside the door and that was it.

I sat in the house with [Hanson] . . . [Hart] walked in. . . . When he got there, he knocked on the door. [Hanson] answered the door. They didn't go past the bar by the front-inside the front door when you walk in, there is a bar to the right. They sat there and did their deal. . . . They changed wares, [Hanson] come exchange with me, give [Hart] back the money and-

The informant never spoke to Hart. After leaving Hanson's house, the informant gave the methamphetamine to the officers and reported what had happened.

Sometime later that month, Hanson phoned the informant and asked if he knew anyone looking for drugs. The informant and Hanson negotiated a price, which was again "80 cents for a hundred." The amount Hanson sold to the informant during the first buy was 1.8 ounces less than they had agreed. The informant testified that Hanson "was supposed to make up for the gram and 80 cents the last one was short, too, because he thought it was for the same people." The informant arranged to purchase a half-ounce of methamphetamine from Hanson for $900. On January 22, 2009, the second controlled buy occurred. The informant again went to Hanson's home, after which Hanson phoned Hart and Hart brought the methamphetamine to the home, but did not go inside. The informant described the second transaction,

A. . . . . Brian went out and got it and brought it back to me.

Q. And who did you give the money too? A. Brian. . . . .

Q. And what-who gave you the drugs? A. Brian.

Hanson and the informant spoke about the quantity and quality of the drugs. They discussed the color of the methamphetamine, which was yellow and Hanson claimed the quality was good in spite of this coloring. Immediately after leaving Hanson's house, the informant turned the drugs over to officers.

Hanson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Hanson first argues that neither of the delivery convictions can be sustained because there was no testimony that he delivered the methamphetamine.*fn2 Delivery is defined as "the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance, whether or not there is an agency relationship." Iowa Code ยง 124.101(7). Prior to each controlled buy, the informant and Hanson negotiated a price and quantity and Hanson agreed to sell the informant methamphetamine. In each instance, Hanson contacted Hart so that Hanson could obtain ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.