SCHMIDT, JUSTICE.
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 14th Judicial Circuit, Henry County, Illinois. Circuit No. 18-CF-322 Honorable Norma Kauzlarich, Judge, Presiding.
SCHMIDT JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice O'Brien and Justice Daugherity concurred in the judgment.
SCHMIDT, JUSTICE.
¶ 1 Held: The State presented sufficient evidence to prove defendant's guilt of obstructing justice beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶ 2 Defendant, Jewel W.H. Coulter, appeals from his obstructing justice conviction and sentence. He contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove that he committed the offense of obstructing justice beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND 1
¶ 4 The State charged defendant with unlawful possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine (720 ILCS 646/55(a)(1), (a)(2)(E) (West 2018)), unlawful possession of methamphetamine (id. § 60(a), (b)(5)), methamphetamine conspiracy (id. § 65), unlawful possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, with intent to deliver (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2) (West 2018)), unlawful possession of a controlled substance, cocaine (id. § 402(c)), unlawful possession of a controlled substance, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), with intent to deliver (id. § 401(c)(7.5)(ii)), unlawful possession of a controlled substance, MDMA (id. § 402(c)), and obstructing justice (720 ILCS 5/31-4(a)(1) (West 2018)). On appeal, defendant only contests his obstructing justice conviction. The charge alleged that defendant committed the offense with the intent to prevent the prosecution of possession of methamphetamine by knowingly destroying methamphetamine. The cause proceeded to a bench trial.
Initially, the State's indictment alleged that defendant "knowingly attempted" to destroy methamphetamine. Prior to trial, the State amended the information to state that defendant "knowingly destroyed methamphetamine."
¶ 5 Kewanee police officer Eric Peed testified that he participated in undercover operations and investigations regarding the distribution of narcotics, including methamphetamine. On September 23, 2018, the circuit court granted Peed's application for a search warrant for a residence. Peed arrived at the residence with several officers and approached the front door. Peed knocked and announced the officers' presence and intent to execute the search warrant. Peed saw defendant get up from the kitchen table and carry a bag to the sink. Defendant placed the bag in the sink and turned on the water. Officers breached the front door and entered the residence. Following the entry, Peed observed multiple small plastic bags, soap, several small pieces of methamphetamine inside the sink, and a tied grocery bag on the edge of the sink. All the bags contained large amounts of suspected methamphetamine. Peed identified several of the State's 2 exhibits as photographs showing the small plastic bags containing methamphetamine, a soapy substance, and the small pieces of methamphetamine in the sink, and a grocery bag on the edge of the sink. Peed also identified State's exhibit Nos. 12 through 15 as evidence containing methamphetamine collected from the sink and other locations inside the residence. State's exhibit Nos. 12 through 15 weighed approximately 860 grams with packaging.
¶ 6 Following defendant's arrest, Peed conducted a recorded interview with defendant. During the interview, defendant said he was selling the methamphetamine located at his residence. Further, when Peed observed defendant through the window prior to entry, defendant attempted to "get rid" of the methamphetamine.
¶ 7 On redirect-examination, Peed explained that methamphetamine is water-soluble. While removing the wet bags of methamphetamine from the sink, Peed's gloves picked up a white film created by the melted methamphetamine residue. Peed was unable to collect the substance on his gloves.
¶ 8 The recording of Peed's interview with defendant shows defendant tell officers that he had been selling methamphetamine for approximately six months. Defendant received one or two pounds of methamphetamine earlier that night. When officers arrived at the residence, defendant sat at the kitchen table while he broke up methamphetamine into smaller bags. Defendant agreed that when he observed officers at the door, he placed the methamphetamine in the sink and poured water on it to wash it down the sink or "get rid of it."
¶ 9 A forensic scientist testified the State's exhibit Nos. 12 and 13 were a chunky white substance that contained methamphetamine. The forensic scientist did not test exhibit Nos. 14 and 15, which also contained a chunky white substance because the prior two exhibits reached the weight limit required for the other charges. 3
¶ 10 Defendant testified that on September 23, 2018, just prior to the officers entering the residence, he looked out the window and walked to the sink. Defendant noticed several bags in the sink and observed a crystallized substance in one of the bags. Defendant attempted to "get rid of the crystallized substance, as he thought it was an illegal substance, by pouring water on the bag. Defendant denied carrying a plastic bag to the sink right before police entered the residence.
¶ 11 On cross-examination, defendant explained that he poured water on the crystallized substances "[b]ecause it was pointless to throw it in the garbage or *** throw it out back where potentially other kids could be playing." Defendant thought the substance might be methamphetamine.
¶ 12 The court found defendant guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, possession of methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance, and obstructing justice. Defendant's possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of methamphetamine convictions merged. The court sentenced defendant to 14 years' imprisonment for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and 3 years' imprisonment for possession of a controlled substance and obstructing justice, to be served concurrently. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, generally alleging that the State presented insufficient evidence to find him guilty. The court denied defendant's motion.
¶ 13 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 14 On appeal, defendant argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of obstructing justice. Specifically, the State failed to prove that defendant's actions materially impeded the administration of justice where the State was still able to prosecute defendant. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find a rational trier of fact could have found defendant guilty of obstructing justice. 4
¶ 15 In a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence," 'the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" (Emphasis in original.) People v. Collins, 106 Ill.2d 237, 261 (1985) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). "When presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, it is not the function of this court to retry the defendant." Id. Thus, "the reviewing court must allow all reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the prosecution." People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill.2d 274, 280 (2004)."' "[T]he trier of fact is not required to disregard inferences which flow normally from the evidence before it, nor need it search out all possible explanations consistent with innocence and raise them to a level of reasonable doubt." '" People v. Newton, 2018 IL 122958, ¶ 24 (quoting People v. Hardman, 2017 IL 121453, ¶ 37, quoting People v. Jackson, 232 Ill.2d 246, 281 (2009)). "A conviction will be reversed only where the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory that it justifies a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt." People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 67.
¶ 16 As charged in this case, a person obstructs justice when he or she knowingly "[d]estroys, alters, conceals or disguises physical evidence" with the "intent to prevent the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person." 720 ILCS 5/31-4(a)(1) (West 2018). Further, "section 31-4(a) of the Criminal Code [of 2012] requires a showing of material impediment" to prove the offense of obstructing justice. People v. Casler, 2020 IL 125117, ¶ 33.
¶ 17 In the present case, the evidence established that defendant knowingly destroyed methamphetamine with the intent to obstruct his prosecution for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of methamphetamine. Before entering defendant's house, Peed watched as defendant took a bag to the sink and ran water over it. Following entry, Peed 5 found multiple wet bags in and around the sink that contained methamphetamine. Peed's testimony also inferentially established defendant's intent, as Peed explained that methamphetamine is water-soluble, and water causes methamphetamine to melt. In support, Peed observed the film on the gloves he used to collect the remaining methamphetamine that he identified as the melted form of methamphetamine. Defendant's recorded interview corroborated Peed's testimony, as defendant told Peed that when he saw officers at his door, he turned the water on in the sink to "get rid" of the methamphetamine. Defendant also testified that he recognized the substance in the sink as methamphetamine and tried to "get rid of it." These facts overwhelmingly established that defendant destroyed methamphetamine with the intent to obstruct the State's prosecution.
¶ 18 Moreover, we find that defendant's actions to "destroy[ ] some of the methamphetamine" is sufficient to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of obstructing justice. Defendant's actions materially impeded the investigation by preventing the complete collection of evidence at the residence. See id. Logically, defendant need not destroy all of the evidence to be guilty of obstruction, as the mere destruction of some evidence, at a minimum, prevented the State from weighing all of the methamphetamine to determine if a more serious charge was warranted.
¶ 19 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 20 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Henry County.
¶ 21 Affirmed. 6
Comments