## Facts

- Argilee Henderson was the tenant and primary resident of a one-bedroom apartment.
- Police and the landlord arrived to evict Henderson and remove her belongings; Henderson locked the door, refused to respond, and after entry was forced, verbally and physically resisted.
- During the eviction, an officer found a bag of methamphetamine on Henderson’s headboard, marijuana on top of the refrigerator, and additional marijuana in an end table in the bedroom.
- Drug paraphernalia, some showing signs of use, was found in the bedroom, on a living-room coffee table, and under the mattress.
- Lisa Williams had been staying in the apartment for only a few days, cooperated with authorities, and denied owning the drugs; there was no evidence tying her to the contraband beyond her presence.
- The State prosecuted on a constructive-possession theory based on Henderson’s control of the premises and the location of the drugs and paraphernalia.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Henderson constructively possessed the marijuana and methamphetamine found in the apartment.
2. Whether admitting evidence of Henderson’s prior marijuana-possession conviction to prove knowledge was an abuse of discretion and, if error, whether it was harmless.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals decision, reversed the district court judgment, and remanded for a new trial.
- The Court held the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find Henderson constructively possessed the drugs.
- The Court held the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Henderson’s prior marijuana-possession conviction because unfair prejudice substantially outweighed probative value.
- The Court held the evidentiary error was not harmless because the prior-conviction evidence had a substantial likelihood of affecting the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the verdict, substantial evidence would allow a rational factfinder to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Constructive possession requires proof the defendant knew of the substance and had the authority or right to maintain control over it.
- If contraband is found in premises not exclusively occupied by the defendant, the State must show additional circumstances linking the defendant to the contraband beyond mere presence; location in areas closely associated with the defendant and related paraphernalia can supply that link.
- Other-acts evidence is inadmissible to prove propensity, and even when offered for a non-propensity purpose (such as knowledge), it must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- Erroneous admission of a prior drug conviction is not harmless if it likely affected the verdict or impacted the defendant’s substantial rights.

## Conclusion

The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to submit constructive possession to the jury based on Henderson’s control of the apartment and the placement of drugs and paraphernalia, but ordered a new trial because admitting her prior drug conviction created an impermissible propensity inference and was not harmless.


State v. Henderson, 696 N.W.2d 5 (Iowa 2005)