from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott,
challenges his convictions for possession of methamphetamine
with intent to deliver and delivery of a controlled
D. Dickey of Dickey & Campbell Law Firm, P.L.C., Des
Moines, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., McDonald, J., and Carr, S.J.
Harris appeals his convictions for one count of possession of
methamphetamine with intent to deliver, in violation of Iowa
Code section 124.401(1)(c)(6) (2016), and two counts of
delivery of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in
violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(c)(6). He contends
the district court erred in receiving implied hearsay or
indirect hearsay testimony, and he contends the evidence was
insufficient to establish he possessed methamphetamine.
has not preserved for appellate review his challenge to the
implied hearsay or indirect hearsay evidence. Two police
officers observed Harris make two hand-to-hand drug
transactions through the passenger's side window of a
parked vehicle. The officers stopped the persons who engaged
in the transactions and found them to be in possession of
methamphetamine. The stopped persons did not testify at
trial. However, the officers testified the stopped persons
confirmed the officers' observations that Harris engaged
in hand-to-hand drug transactions through the window of the
vehicle. Harris contends the officers' testimony that the
stopped persons confirmed the officers' observations was
impermissible implied hearsay or impermissible indirect
hearsay. But trial counsel did not object to the challenged
testimony. Instead, trial counsel made a single objection
when it appeared one officer was beginning to testify
regarding what one of the stopped persons specifically said
to the officer. This single objection is not sufficient to
preserve error with respect to all of the challenged
evidence. See State v. Schaer, 757 N.W.2d 630, 635
(Iowa 2008) (addressing error preservation on hearsay);
State v. Farni, 325 N.W.2d 107, 109 (Iowa 1982)
("Objections to evidence must be sufficiently specific
to inform the trial court of the basis for objecting. This
one failed to meet this standard. The trial court ruled on
the objection as it was made. Nothing more was required of
him."). In a footnote, Harris contends the issue can be
addressed as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
However, Harris does not even allege he suffered
constitutional prejudice. A litigant's "random
mention of [an] issue, without elaboration or supportive
authority, is insufficient to raise the issue for our
consideration." Soo Line R.R. Co. v. Iowa Dep't
of Transp., 521 N.W.2d 685, 691 (Iowa 1994). We decline
to construct Harris's ineffective-assistance claim for
him. We thus conclude error was not preserved on the
challenge to the implied hearsay testimony, and we deny
Harris's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
related to the same.
argues the evidence is insufficient to establish he possessed
methamphetamine. Specifically, there is no evidence he owned
the drugs and mere proximity to the drugs is insufficient to
show possession. We will uphold the jury's verdict if
substantial record evidence supports it. See State v.
Webb, 648 N.W.2d 72, 75 (Iowa 2002). "Evidence is
substantial if it would convince a rational fact finder that
the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
Id. at 75-76. When reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the State but consider all evidence in the record. See
id at 76. "The State must prove every fact
necessary to constitute the crime with which the defendant is
charged. The evidence must raise a fair inference of guilt
and do more than create speculation, suspicion, or
conjecture." Id. (internal citations omitted).
"Inherent in our standard of review of jury verdicts in
criminal cases is the recognition that the jury [is] free to
reject certain evidence and credit other evidence."
State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 556 (Iowa 2006).
establish possession with intent to deliver, the State was
required to prove:
1. On or about July 29, 2016, the defendant, or someone he
aided and abetted, knowingly possessed methamphetamine.
2. The defendant, or someone he aided and abetted, knew that
the substance possessed was methamphetamine.
3. The defendant, or someone he aided and abetted, possessed
the substance with specific ...