Commonwealth v. White
799 S.E.2d 494
| Va. | 2017Background
- Police responded to repeated complaints about narcotics activity at a motel known for drug transactions and prostitution; they saw White leaning into a car in the motel parking lot and later emerge with cash and a phone.
- Officers approached White, obtained his consent to search, and found on his person three baggies of uncut "raw" heroin in three different weights (total ~4.306 g), $644 in organized denominations, two cell phones, and ~0.839 g marijuana; no user paraphernalia was found.
- After White’s arrest he identified his girlfriend Tanya and asked officers to locate her in Room 219; an officer knocked, Tanya admitted him, consented to a search, and a gray plastic bag on the bed (which Tanya said "belonged to" White) contained a digital scale, 200 empty capsules, and small baggies.
- At trial the Commonwealth presented an expert in drug distribution who, based solely on items found on White, opined the materials were consistent with distribution (quantity of raw heroin, lack of user paraphernalia, organized currency, two phones); the expert briefly confirmed that items in the motel bag were useful for distribution but did not condition his main opinion on that bag.
- The prosecutor’s case and closing argument relied principally on the items found on White; he did not emphasize the motel-bag evidence. White presented no evidence or witnesses. The trial court convicted White of possession with intent to distribute (third or subsequent offense).
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court erred in denying White’s suppression motion and that any error was not harmless. The Virginia Supreme Court granted review and addressed harmless-error first.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (White) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying suppression of evidence from motel room | Consent from Tanya valid or otherwise not material; even if error, conviction should stand | Tanya’s consent insufficient (or motel-bag evidence was unlawfully admitted) | Court did not reach suppression issue as dispositive; treated error (if any) as harmless as a matter of law |
| Whether admission of motel-bag evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Even if erroneously admitted, the unchallenged evidence from White’s person alone proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Admission likely contributed to conviction; error not harmless per Court of Appeals | Harmless-error standard satisfied: conviction would have been the same absent the challenged evidence |
| Proper harmless-error standard for constitutional error | Apply Chapman/Neder inquiry: would factfinder have reached same verdict absent error? | Agreed standard; argued evidence was prejudicial | Court reiterated Chapman/Neder standard and applied it, finding no reasonable doubt the verdict stands |
| Role of trial vs. appellate evidence when assessing suppression and harmlessness | Appellate courts may consider trial evidence when reviewing denial of suppression and harmless-error inquiry | White argued trial-court denial of suppression was erroneous and not cured by other evidence | Court acknowledged trial evidence can be considered; nonetheless found any error harmless and vacated appellate reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Glenn v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 123 (Va. 2008) (discusses apparent authority to consent to searches within a dwelling)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (establishes harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (clarifies harmless-error inquiry: would verdict be the same absent the error)
- United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (U.S. 1983) (harmless-error test: whether error contributed to the verdict)
- Walker v. Commonwealth, 144 Va. 648 (Va. 1926) (historical recognition that harmless-error review is statutorily required in Virginia)