IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-0620 Filed March 6, 2019
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JOSEPH EDWARD BREKKE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge.
Joseph Brekke appeals his convictions for operating while intoxicated and
possession of controlled substances. AFFIRMED.
John C. Heinicke of Kragnes & Associates, PC, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ. 2
BOWER, Judge.
Joseph Brekke appeals his convictions for operating while intoxicated and
possession of controlled substances. We find substantial evidence supports each
conviction and affirm the district court.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
Just after 2:00 a.m. on October 3, 2017, law enforcement found Brekke’s
vehicle stopped a few feet into an intersection of two major roads with the engine
running and brake lights on. The officer performed a welfare check when the
vehicle did not move through two green light cycles, and observed Brekke passed
out in the driver’s seat. The officer woke Brekke by knocking on the window and
asked him to step out of the vehicle. Brekke appeared groggy, lethargic, and
confused. The officer smelled alcohol on Brekke and Brekke exhibited signs of an
intoxicated individual, including bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, and
unsteady balance. Brekke admitted to drinking a few beers earlier that night.
Brekke told the officers he took “a lot” of medications including for a bad back and
mental health. Brekke was unable to orient himself and soon claimed he had never
been in the driver’s seat of his car and had been left in the intersection by a friend
when the car ran out of gas. Brekke’s horizontal gaze nystagmus test indicated
intoxication, but he could not complete other field sobriety tests due to a claimed
back injury. He refused to take a preliminary breath test, and, after being read the
implied consent advisory at the police station, refused to submit a breath sample.
A search of the vehicle yielded three alprazolam pills and two hydrocodone
pills in a cigarette pack cellophane wrapper in the center console. A large amount
of cash was also found in the vehicle. A search of Brekke yielded a cigarette pack 3
containing a credit or debit card with Brekke’s name on it, a folded paper packet
containing a white powdery substance, and a vial with residue of the same
powdery substance. The officers suspected, and testing confirmed, the substance
was cocaine. It appeared Brekke had not cleaned out the vehicle for some time,
and he testified to having owned the vehicle for thirteen years. Brekke’s current
prescription medications were not found in the vehicle.
Brekke was charged with one count of operating while intoxicated, in
violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (2017), and three counts of possession of a
controlled substance—for cocaine, hydrocodone, and alprazolam—in violation of
section 124.401. A jury trial was held March 7 and 8, 2018. Brekke moved for
directed verdict and judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s evidence,
which the court denied.
Brekke testified at trial. He testified that in the past, he had valid
prescriptions for alprazolam and hydrocodone, which had expired in 2010 and
2013, respectively. He testified to having prescriptions for mental-health-related
medications on October 3, but he had not taken them for several days and his
physical signs of intoxication were signs of his withdrawal from the prescriptions.1
Brekke attributed his behavior to various physical ailments, fatigue, suicide
ideation, and emotional trauma from watching a friend shoot himself triggered by
a recent mass shooting. He testified on October 3 he was on his way to the
hospital due to an episode of psychosis. He had a prescription for eye drops but
testified he had not been using them and the drops were not found on him. He
1 Brekke’s current prescriptions specifically advised to avoid drinking alcohol while taking the drugs. 4
claimed he picked up an open cigarette pack he found in a gas station bathroom
and put it in his pocket without looking in it, not knowing it had cocaine in it and no
cigarettes. He did not inform the officers of any these claims beyond the physical
ailments, and much of the testimony conflicts with what he told officers that night.
The motion for judgment of acquittal was renewed and again denied at the
close of the defense’s evidence. The jury returned a guilty verdict on all four
counts. Brekke filed a motion in arrest of judgment and motion for new trial. The
court denied the motions and on April 5 entered judgment and sentenced Brekke.
Brekke appeals, claiming there was not sufficient evidence to support his
conviction on any of the charges.
II. Standard of Review
We review sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims for correction of errors at law.
State v. Thomas, 847 N.W.2d 438, 442 (Iowa 2014). We will consider all evidence
in the record, including all reasonable inferences fairly drawn from the evidence,
viewed in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Reed, 875 N.W.2d 693,
704 (Iowa 2016). We will uphold a verdict supported by substantial evidence in
the record. State v. Showens, 845 N.W.2d 436, 440 (Iowa 2014). “Evidence is
substantial when ‘a rational trier of fact could conceivably find the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Howse, 875 N.W.2d 684, 688 (Iowa 2016)
(quoting State v. Thomas, 561 N.W.2d 37, 39 (Iowa 1997)).
III. Analysis
The jury heard evidence from the two officers who spoke with Brekke the
night of October 3, and viewed dash-cam, body camera, and police station video
of their interactions with Brekke. The jury also had the opportunity to hear 5
testimony from Brekke and to make credibility determinations regarding the
testimony from the officers and Brekke. A jury is free to believe or disbelieve any
testimony as it chooses and to give as much weight to the evidence as, in its
judgment, such evidence should receive.” State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 556
(Iowa 2006).
A. Operating while intoxicated. Brekke claims he was not intoxicated,
but rather was impaired due to the withdrawal effects of missing mental-health
medications and physical impairments that presented as intoxication. He points to
the lack of physical evidence proving intoxication.
A defendant may be convicted of operating while either having a blood
alcohol concentration above the statutory amount, or while under the influence of
alcohol or drugs or a combination of the two. State v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-0620 Filed March 6, 2019
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JOSEPH EDWARD BREKKE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge.
Joseph Brekke appeals his convictions for operating while intoxicated and
possession of controlled substances. AFFIRMED.
John C. Heinicke of Kragnes & Associates, PC, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ. 2
BOWER, Judge.
Joseph Brekke appeals his convictions for operating while intoxicated and
possession of controlled substances. We find substantial evidence supports each
conviction and affirm the district court.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
Just after 2:00 a.m. on October 3, 2017, law enforcement found Brekke’s
vehicle stopped a few feet into an intersection of two major roads with the engine
running and brake lights on. The officer performed a welfare check when the
vehicle did not move through two green light cycles, and observed Brekke passed
out in the driver’s seat. The officer woke Brekke by knocking on the window and
asked him to step out of the vehicle. Brekke appeared groggy, lethargic, and
confused. The officer smelled alcohol on Brekke and Brekke exhibited signs of an
intoxicated individual, including bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, and
unsteady balance. Brekke admitted to drinking a few beers earlier that night.
Brekke told the officers he took “a lot” of medications including for a bad back and
mental health. Brekke was unable to orient himself and soon claimed he had never
been in the driver’s seat of his car and had been left in the intersection by a friend
when the car ran out of gas. Brekke’s horizontal gaze nystagmus test indicated
intoxication, but he could not complete other field sobriety tests due to a claimed
back injury. He refused to take a preliminary breath test, and, after being read the
implied consent advisory at the police station, refused to submit a breath sample.
A search of the vehicle yielded three alprazolam pills and two hydrocodone
pills in a cigarette pack cellophane wrapper in the center console. A large amount
of cash was also found in the vehicle. A search of Brekke yielded a cigarette pack 3
containing a credit or debit card with Brekke’s name on it, a folded paper packet
containing a white powdery substance, and a vial with residue of the same
powdery substance. The officers suspected, and testing confirmed, the substance
was cocaine. It appeared Brekke had not cleaned out the vehicle for some time,
and he testified to having owned the vehicle for thirteen years. Brekke’s current
prescription medications were not found in the vehicle.
Brekke was charged with one count of operating while intoxicated, in
violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (2017), and three counts of possession of a
controlled substance—for cocaine, hydrocodone, and alprazolam—in violation of
section 124.401. A jury trial was held March 7 and 8, 2018. Brekke moved for
directed verdict and judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s evidence,
which the court denied.
Brekke testified at trial. He testified that in the past, he had valid
prescriptions for alprazolam and hydrocodone, which had expired in 2010 and
2013, respectively. He testified to having prescriptions for mental-health-related
medications on October 3, but he had not taken them for several days and his
physical signs of intoxication were signs of his withdrawal from the prescriptions.1
Brekke attributed his behavior to various physical ailments, fatigue, suicide
ideation, and emotional trauma from watching a friend shoot himself triggered by
a recent mass shooting. He testified on October 3 he was on his way to the
hospital due to an episode of psychosis. He had a prescription for eye drops but
testified he had not been using them and the drops were not found on him. He
1 Brekke’s current prescriptions specifically advised to avoid drinking alcohol while taking the drugs. 4
claimed he picked up an open cigarette pack he found in a gas station bathroom
and put it in his pocket without looking in it, not knowing it had cocaine in it and no
cigarettes. He did not inform the officers of any these claims beyond the physical
ailments, and much of the testimony conflicts with what he told officers that night.
The motion for judgment of acquittal was renewed and again denied at the
close of the defense’s evidence. The jury returned a guilty verdict on all four
counts. Brekke filed a motion in arrest of judgment and motion for new trial. The
court denied the motions and on April 5 entered judgment and sentenced Brekke.
Brekke appeals, claiming there was not sufficient evidence to support his
conviction on any of the charges.
II. Standard of Review
We review sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims for correction of errors at law.
State v. Thomas, 847 N.W.2d 438, 442 (Iowa 2014). We will consider all evidence
in the record, including all reasonable inferences fairly drawn from the evidence,
viewed in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Reed, 875 N.W.2d 693,
704 (Iowa 2016). We will uphold a verdict supported by substantial evidence in
the record. State v. Showens, 845 N.W.2d 436, 440 (Iowa 2014). “Evidence is
substantial when ‘a rational trier of fact could conceivably find the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Howse, 875 N.W.2d 684, 688 (Iowa 2016)
(quoting State v. Thomas, 561 N.W.2d 37, 39 (Iowa 1997)).
III. Analysis
The jury heard evidence from the two officers who spoke with Brekke the
night of October 3, and viewed dash-cam, body camera, and police station video
of their interactions with Brekke. The jury also had the opportunity to hear 5
testimony from Brekke and to make credibility determinations regarding the
testimony from the officers and Brekke. A jury is free to believe or disbelieve any
testimony as it chooses and to give as much weight to the evidence as, in its
judgment, such evidence should receive.” State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 556
(Iowa 2006).
A. Operating while intoxicated. Brekke claims he was not intoxicated,
but rather was impaired due to the withdrawal effects of missing mental-health
medications and physical impairments that presented as intoxication. He points to
the lack of physical evidence proving intoxication.
A defendant may be convicted of operating while either having a blood
alcohol concentration above the statutory amount, or while under the influence of
alcohol or drugs or a combination of the two. State v. Hutton, 796 N.W.2d 898,
904 (Iowa 2011). The jury may consider a defendant’s refusal to submit to the
breath test. See Iowa Code § 321J.16; State v. Massick, 511 N.W.2d 384, 387
(Iowa 1994). Brekke admitted to having multiple alcoholic beverages that night
and stated to officers he was on “a lot” of medications.
“[T]he determination of whether a person is under the influence of an
alcoholic beverage is focused on the conduct and demeanor of the person . . . .”
Id. A person is “under the influence” when the person has been drinking alcohol
and (1) his reason or mental ability has been affected, (2) he has impaired
judgment, (3) he has visibly excited emotions, or (4) he has lost control of bodily
actions or motions to any extent. State v. Dominguez, 482 N.W.2d 390, 392 (Iowa
1992). The jury may also consider the defendant’s refusal to submit to a chemical
test as evidence of intoxication. See Iowa Code § 321J.16. 6
Regardless of his blood alcohol concentration and any withdrawal he may
have been experiencing, the videos show Brekke exhibiting several signs of being
under the influence and had admitted to drinking alcohol that night. In particular,
Brekke exhibited difficulty answering officers’ questions, an inability to reason, and
had delayed reactions to officer requests. Based on the evidence before it, the
jury could conceivably find beyond a reasonable doubt that Brekke was under the
influence of alcohol or drugs or a combination of alcohol and drugs. Substantial
evidence supports the jury’s verdict.
B. Possession of illegal substance. Brekke claims he picked up an
open cigarette pack in a gas station bathroom and put it in his pocket, not knowing
it contained a vial and paper packet with cocaine. He testified to not knowing how
his debit card then ended up inside the pack with a paper with the cocaine vial and
packet.
“When the State charges a person with possession, the State must prove
the person exercised dominion and control over the contraband, had knowledge
of the contraband’s presence, and had knowledge the material was a narcotic.”
State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 193 (Iowa 2008). Here, the cocaine was found
in Brekke’s pocket, in a pack of the same type of cigarettes as Brekke smokes,
with Brekke’s debit card. The State proved Brekke’s exclusive dominion and
control of the substance.
Knowledge of the presence and nature of the substance “can, and because
of their subjective nature often must be, inferred.” State v. Rudd, 454 N.W.2d 570,
571 (Iowa 1990), overruled on other grounds by State v. Webb, 648 N.W.2d 72,
79 (Iowa 2002). A rebuttable inference of knowledge can arise from exclusive 7
possession. State v. Reeves, 209 N.W.2d 18, 23 (Iowa 1973). The jury weighed
Brekke’s exclusive possession and the presence of his debit card in the same pack
as the cocaine against Brekke’s rebutting testimony that he randomly picked up
and pocketed the pack with no idea what was in it.
We find after weighing the weight of the evidence and determining the
credibility of the witnesses, the jury could reasonably infer Brekke had knowledge
of the presence and nature of the cocaine as well as actual possession of it, and
substantial evidence supports the verdict.
C. Possession of prescription medications. The prescription
medications alprazolam and hydrocodone were found together in Brekke’s vehicle.
Brekke admitted at trial the pills were his. Brekke’s defense to each is he did not
know it was in his vehicle and he could possess the medication due to a past
prescription. The prescription medications were not loose and lost within the
vehicle but were collected together in a single wrapper in the center console of
Brekke’s vehicle. The jury could reasonably infer Brekke knew of the pills’
presence from his keeping them in a single cellophane wrapper located in the
center console of his vehicle.
A person may lawfully possess a controlled substance if it was “obtained
directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription.” Iowa Code § 124.401(5). To
come within the exception, a defendant must establish “(1) the controlled
substance was obtained pursuant to a valid prescription; (2) the defendant came
into lawful possession of the controlled substance; and (3) the defendant lawfully
possessed the controlled substance for his or her own lawful use pursuant to a
valid prescription.” State v. Gallardo, No. 14-0350, 2015 WL 5278948, at *8 (Iowa 8
Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2015). The State can negate the exception beyond a reasonable
doubt by disproving any of the elements. Id.
Brekke failed to provide any evidence the pills discovered were remainders
from his past prescriptions.2 In this case, the pills were not found in pharmacy
containers containing information of a valid prescription or in any container used
to assist in tracking medications, nor were they found scattered in Brekke’s vehicle
as if lost. Instead, they were found wrapped together in a clear cellophane wrapper
in the center console within Brekke’s reach. Nothing about the pills or Brekke’s
method and place of storage indicated the pills were left over from his 2010 and
2013 prescriptions. A long-expired prescription for a controlled substance cannot
support the active possession of a prescription medication without some indication
of lawful possession and use.
We find a reasonable fact finder could find beyond a reasonable doubt
Brekke knew the pills were located in the center console, he did not obtain the
alprazolam and hydrocodone from valid prescriptions for either prescription
medication, and in October 2017 he did not lawfully possess the pills for his lawful
use pursuant to a valid prescription. We affirm Brekke’s convictions for possession
of alprazolam and hydrocodone.
AFFIRMED.
2 While Iowa law does not require disposal of outdated prescription medications, the prohibition on possession of controlled substances means the medications must link directly to the valid prescription.