Gerald Deandre Lewis v. Commonwealth of Virginia
0912152
| Va. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Officer stopped vehicle for speeding; appellant (passenger) and driver Barr were detained after a high-speed chase that ended in a crash.
- Officer smelled a strong odor of raw marijuana; during the chase a large vacuum-sealed bag flew from the passenger side window and was later recovered containing ~3 ounces of marijuana in three ~1-ounce vacuum-sealed packages.
- Appellant had over $2,000 in cash on his person (mostly $20s); no smoking paraphernalia or indicators of personal use were found.
- Officer Allen, testifying as a narcotics-distribution expert, stated the quantity and packaging were inconsistent with personal use and consistent with distribution, especially to college areas; appellant was traveling to college near Petersburg.
- Barr and appellant both denied knowledge of the drugs; Barr testified the drugs were his but the trial court rejected his testimony as unreliable; the trial court also found appellant’s explanations (including that cash was for rent) not credible.
- Appellant was convicted in a bench trial of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute; he appealed arguing insufficient evidence of intent to distribute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved intent to distribute marijuana | Commonwealth: quantity, packaging, absence of paraphernalia, cash, and flight support intent to distribute | Lewis: evidence only shows possession; no direct proof of intent and he disclaimed knowledge | Court: Affirmed — circumstantial evidence (packaging, amount, money, absence of paraphernalia, and flight) sufficient to infer intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Viney v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 296 (review standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Ervin v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 495 (intent to distribute may be proved by circumstantial evidence)
- Welshman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 20 (factors: packaging and absence of paraphernalia as indicia of distribution)
- Askew v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 104 (expert testimony on weight/packaging to infer distribution)
- Iglesias v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 93 (possession of quantity greater than personal use is a factor)
- Burrell v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 417 (bench-trial verdict reviewed like jury verdict)