Dickerson v. Commonwealth
709 S.E.2d 717
Va. Ct. App.2011Background
- In April 2009, Hampton police arrested Dickerson for public intoxication after finding him asleep in a car blocking a private residence driveway.
- An officer noticed a scale with what appeared to be marijuana residue near Dickerson's left thigh during the arrest.
- A search incident to arrest revealed marijuana and cocaine in Dickerson's pockets.
- At bench trial, Dickerson moved to strike the evidence but argued only that the police unlawfully searched him.
- Dickerson testified he did not know where the cocaine came from and that it was not his; no motion to strike after all evidence was presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of sufficiency challenge | Dickerson argues closing preserved sufficiency review. | Commonwealth contends no preservation because the closing did not raise sufficiency. | Not preserved; conviction affirmed. |
| If preserved, whether evidence shows knowing possession | Dickerson knew the cocaine was in his pockets. | Dickerson did not know the cocaine was present or its nature. | Not reached; issue not preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476 (1991) (preservation of sufficiency when argued in closing and renewed later)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 412 (1988) (motion to strike could preserve sufficiency in bench trial (before Campbell))
- Young v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 587 (2008) (knowledge of nature/character of contraband required; ambiguous evidence may negate knowledge)
- Garland v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 182 (1983) (knowledge may be inferred from acts, statements, or conduct)
- Cordon v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 691 (2010) (inference of knowledge from possession when evidence conflicts with defendant's denial)
- McQuinn v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 753 (1995) (defendant's evidence presented on own behalf; effect on rulings under Rule 5A:18)
- Arrington v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 635 (2009) (clarifies interplay of suppression and sufficiency arguments)
- Delaney v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 64 (2009) (closing arguments and sufficiency considerations in bench trials)