Holloway v. Commonwealth
57 Va. App. 658
| Va. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- appellant Holloway was convicted in a bench trial of possession with intent to distribute an imitation controlled substance and assault and battery of a law enforcement officer.
- On rehearing en banc, the court lifted a stay and held the evidence sufficient to prove intent to distribute, affirming the conviction for that charge.
- On August 19, 2006 Portsmouth police observed Holloway on a porch; another male was present but not apprehended.
- A plastic corner baggie on the porch contained three smaller baggies of an imitation substance; no real crack cocaine was found upon testing.
- Detective Gavin testified as an expert that possession of three rocks with no ingestion device and an imitation substance is inconsistent with personal use and suggests distribution.
- The trial court based its verdict on Holloway’s possession of the imitation substance together with the circumstantial evidence and Gavin’s expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proves intent to distribute | Holloway | Holloway | Yes; evidence supports intent to distribute |
Key Cases Cited
- Pryor v. Commonwealth, 48 Va.App. 1 (2006) (standard of review for appellate evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505 (2003) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency; reasonable hypotheses of innocence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
- Dukes v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 119 (1984) (packaging, quantity, and paraphernalia as factors in intent to distribute)
- Askew v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 104 (2003) (expert testimony considered among factors for intent to distribute)
- McCain v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 483 (2001) (quantity, packaging, and cash as indicators of distribution)