State v. Abdullahi

298 A.3d 815

2023 ME 41

STATE of Maine

v.Abdirahmon A. ABDULLAHI a.k.a. Abdirahmon A. Adbullahi

Docket: Cum-22-36

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: December 6, 2022

Decided: July 27, 2023

Kristine C. Hanly, Esq. (orally), Hanly Law, Portland, for appellant Abdirahmon A. Abdullahi

Jonathan Sahrbeck, District Attorney, and Carlos Diaz, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally), Cumberland County District Attorney's Office, Portland, for appellee State of Maine

Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, CONNORS, and LAWRENCE, JJ.

HORTON, J.

[¶1] Abdirahmon A. Abdullahi¹ appeals from a judgment of conviction of unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs (Class B), 17-A M.R.S. § 1103(1-A)(A) (2023), and falsifying physical evidence (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 455(1)(A) (2023), entered by the trial court (Cumberland County, Warren, J. ) after a jury trial.² Abdullahi argues that the court erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence seized as the result of what Abdullahi contends was an unlawful arrest, (2) allowing law enforcement officers to testify as lay witnesses at trial on matters that required expert testimony, (3) including in its jury instructions an instruction on a permissible inference contained in the applicable drug trafficking statute, and (4) denying his motions for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial. We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] "Viewing the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could rationally have found the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Athayde , 2022 ME 41, ¶ 2, 277 A.3d 387. On June 24, 2019, a Maine State Police corporal stopped a vehicle operated by Abdullahi for speeding on the Maine Turnpike. As detailed below, in the course of the traffic stop, the corporal discovered that Abdullahi had been in possession of a bag containing individual packages of what appeared to be cocaine base. After his arrest, Abdullahi was found to be in possession of $1,091 in cash.

[¶3] On June 26, 2019, the State charged Abdullahi by criminal complaint with unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs (Class B), 17-A M.R.S. § 1103(1-A)(A), falsifying physical evidence (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 455(1)(A), and criminal forfeiture, 15 M.R.S. § 5826 (2023). The since-amended statute under which Abdullahi was charged with trafficking provided that proof that a person intentionally or knowingly possessed at least four grams of cocaine base, a Schedule W drug, "gives rise to a permissible inference" that the person was trafficking in cocaine base. 17-A M.R.S. § 1103(1-A)(A), (3)(B) (2018).³ On October 11, 2019, a grand jury indicted Abdullahi for the same two offenses and the forfeiture charged in the complaint. The record does not indicate that an arraignment was held on the indictment.⁴

A. Motion to Suppress

[¶4] Abdullahi filed a motion to suppress the evidence that he was in possession of cocaine base at the time of the traffic stop, and the trial court (French, J. ) held an evidentiary hearing on the motion. Only the Maine State Police corporal testified at the suppression hearing. The court entered an order in which it found the following facts, all of which are supported by competent evidence in the record. See Athayde , 2022 ME 41, ¶ 7, 277 A.3d 387 ; State v. Rosario , 2022 ME 46, ¶ 8, 280 A.3d 199.

[¶5] On June 24, 2019, the corporal stopped a vehicle being operated by Abdullahi for traveling on the Turnpike at eighty-five miles per hour—a rate of speed in excess of the posted speed limit. Because Abdullahi could not produce a driver's license, a vehicle registration, or proof of insurance (although he later showed the corporal a photo of his license on his cell phone), the corporal suspected that the vehicle might not belong to Abdullahi. After obtaining the vehicle registration information through a dispatcher, the corporal spoke by telephone with the owner of the vehicle, who told him that she did not know who Abdullahi was and had not given him permission to use the vehicle. The corporal testified that he decided to call a tow truck to take the car. He placed Abdullahi in handcuffs for safety reasons because Abdullahi was acting nervous and fidgety and because the corporal also needed to pay attention to cleaning out his cruiser so he could give Abdullahi a ride off the Turnpike. Toward the end of the stop, the corporal determined that Abdullahi had been in possession of what appeared to be an illegal drug and placed him under arrest.

[¶6] The court denied Abdullahi's motion to suppress. The court determined that Abdullahi's detention during the traffic stop was lawful because, based on the information the corporal obtained from the vehicle owner, he had probable cause to arrest Abdullahi when he placed Abdullahi in handcuffs. The court also determined that the drug evidence would not have been subject to suppression even if the arrest was unlawful because Abdullahi had not demonstrated a "nexus between the improper police conduct and the evidence seized."

B. Trial and Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and New Trial

[¶7] The court (Warren, J. ) held a three-day jury trial on the charges of drug trafficking and falsifying evidence on July 22, 23, and 26, 2021.

[¶8] The evidence that was admitted included a police cruiser video recording of the traffic stop. The video showed that, as Abdullahi was exiting the vehicle he had been driving and before he was handcuffed, he threw an object under the vehicle. The same video later showed that Abdullahi began sliding toward the object after he was handcuffed and seated on the shoulder of the road. However, the video showed the tow truck driver, who had been called to the scene, noticing the object and picking it up before Abdullahi reached it.

[¶9] The court heard testimony from three law enforcement officers, including the corporal, and a chemist at the Maine Health and Environmental Testing Laboratory. The corporal testified that the tow truck driver handed him the object that Abdullahi had thrown under the car, that he seized it because it appeared to be a plastic bag containing illegal drugs, and that he then placed Abdullahi under arrest. At the State Police barracks, where the corporal transported Abdullahi, the corporal requested assistance in identifying and handling the contents of the bag from two State Police sergeants who had more experience than the corporal in drug investigations. The three officers testified at trial regarding the appearance and weight of the drugs and their experience in handling drug trafficking investigations.⁵ The three officers determined that the object the corporal had seized was a plastic bag weighing twenty-six grams and containing forty-five smaller baggies, each of which contained what they testified appeared to be cocaine base.

[¶10] On the second day of trial, the State sought to present the chemist to testify as an expert witness on drug testing, to support its contention that the forty-five baggies contained cocaine base in an amount sufficient to generate a permissible inference that Abdullahi was trafficking in cocaine base. 17-A M.R.S. § 1103(3). Abdullahi objected to the chemist's testimony, arguing that, because the chemist had tested and weighed fewer than four grams of the substance contained in the baggies, his testimony could not be admitted to support a permissible inference of trafficking. See 17-A M.R.S. § 1103(3)(B) (2018). After the parties conducted a voir dire examination of the chemist outside the presence of the jury, the court ruled that the chemist would be permitted to testify about the tests he performed but would not be permitted to testify that the forty-five baggies contained a total of four or more grams of cocaine base. The chemist testified before the jury that, pursuant to what he said was an accepted testing protocol, he randomly selected five of the forty-five baggies for testing and measurement and concluded that all five contained cocaine base having a total weight of 1.89 grams.

[¶11] After the State and defense had rested, Abdullahi moved for a judgment of acquittal, and the court denied the motion. See M.R.U. Crim. P. 29. The court provided proposed jury instructions to the State and Abdullahi, including the permissible-inference instruction contained in 17-A M.R.S. § 1103(3). Abdullahi objected on the ground that the State's evidence was insufficient to permit a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the forty-five baggies contained at least four grams of cocaine base, and therefore the permissible inference had not been generated for purposes of including it in jury instructions. The court overruled the objection. After the State and Abdullahi presented closing arguments, the court provided instructions to the jury, including an instruction concerning the permissible inference. The jury found Abdullahi guilty of both the trafficking count and the falsifying evidence count.

[¶12] After the verdict, Abdullahi filed a renewed motion for a judgment of acquittal and a motion for a new trial. The court held a hearing on the motions. Abdullahi argued that the court erred when it provided the permissible-inference instruction to the jury because the chemist's testimony was insufficient to generate the inference. He also argued that the court erred by permitting the law enforcement officers to testify as lay witnesses about the contents of the baggies. The court denied Abdullahi's motions. The court then entered a judgment on the verdict and sentenced Abdullahi to two years in prison, with all but six months suspended, and two years of probation.

[¶13] Abdullahi timely appealed from the judgment of conviction. See 15 M.R.S. § 2115 (2023) ; M.R. App. P. 2B(b)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Denial of Abdullahi's Motion to Suppress

[¶14] Relying mainly on the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,⁶ Abdullahi contends that his motion to suppress should have been granted because the bag that he threw under the vehicle he had been...