State v. Stovall

Summary

Justice Espinosa dissented from the majority's conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Thomas Stovall intended to sell narcotics within 1,500 feet of a public housing project. She would have upheld the jury's verdict because Stovall used an apartment inside the project as a drug-storage and sales base, repeatedly visited the location, possessed individually packaged crack cocaine and substantial cash, and operated in an area known for drug trafficking. The dissent distinguishes cases involving merely coincidental or transient presence and concludes that the cumulative circumstantial evidence supported proof beyond a reasonable doubt.