Christian Luke Riddle v. Commonwealth of Virginia
1953153
| Va. Ct. App. | Nov 15, 2016Background
- Riddle was stopped and his vehicle searched; officers found marijuana and three small individually wrapped baggies containing a crystal‑like substance (Himalayan salts) on his passenger, Jefferson.
- Officer Pavia testified, from training/experience, that the crystals resembled “molly” (MDMA). Riddle admitted he and Jefferson bought and packaged the Himalayan salts together.
- Riddle told an officer the salts looked similar to molly and said he would have sold it as molly if someone else knew where to get it.
- The Commonwealth charged Riddle with possession with intent to distribute an imitation Schedule I/II controlled substance under Va. Code § 18.2‑248. The imitation definition includes substances that by appearance or representations would likely be mistaken for a controlled substance.
- At trial the circuit court convicted Riddle; he appealed, arguing insufficient evidence that (1) the substance was represented as MDMA, (2) he possessed it, and (3) he had contemporaneous intent to distribute (his statements were hypothetical).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substance was an "imitation controlled substance" by appearance/representation | Substance and packaging looked like MDMA; officer testimony + Riddle admissions supported that it would be mistaken for molly | No representations made and substance was Himalayan salts, not a controlled substance | Court: Sufficient evidence that appearance/packaging would likely cause confusion; conviction stands |
| Whether Riddle possessed the salts | Joint purchase and packaging with Jefferson shows joint possession and felonious purpose | Salts found on Jefferson, not Riddle; no exclusive possession by Riddle | Court: Joint possession proven—Riddle consented and acted with Jefferson as equal principal |
| Whether Riddle had contemporaneous intent to distribute | Riddle admitted he would sell it as molly if asked; packaging into baggies supports intent | Statements were conditional/hypothetical and cannot establish actual intent | Court: Credibility is for factfinder; court could credit Riddle’s statement and packaging as evidence of intent |
| Whether circumstantial evidence sufficed to sustain conviction | Circumstantial evidence may be conclusive when considered together; officer testimony and admissions form a sufficient whole | Single pieces (location on Jefferson, conditional statement) are insufficient alone | Court: Combined circumstantial evidence justified conviction beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 322 (2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Powell v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. App. 579 (2013) (review evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505 (2003) (circumstantial evidence may be given same weight as direct evidence)
- Powell v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 20 (2015) (appearance testimony can support finding a substance would be mistaken for a controlled drug)
- Stanley v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 867 (1991) (intent to distribute must be contemporaneous with possession)
- Merritt v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 542 (2011) (possession may be joint)
- Archer v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 416 (1983) (possession need not be exclusive)