Merritt v. Commonwealth
57 Va. App. 542
| Va. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Merritt was convicted of possession of ecstasy with intent to distribute, transporting ecstasy into Virginia with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to distribute, based on an undercover drug interdiction at a Virginia Beach bus depot.
- Merritt arrived in a Lexus with Bolton and McDaniels; he conducted surveillance-like behavior, shadowing McDaniels and Spratley as they moved drugs toward a vehicle.
- Law enforcement found a baggie corner with ecstasy residue near the front passenger door where Merritt sat, and later recovered 998 ecstasy tablets in a suitcase in the trunk.
- A Western Union receipt showed $125 wired to Merritt in New York days before the transport; a drug notebook contained an entry 'GMNY 1000' linking Merritt to the transaction; four bus tickets to NYC were found.
- Two cell phones were recovered from Merritt, with Bolton’s phone listing 'G Money' and multiple calls between Merritt, Bolton, and McDaniels preceding the arrest.
- Detectives also recovered a firearm noted in the vehicle's console and Merritt had a belt knife; expert testimony described the role of a 'muscle' or 'lookout' in drug distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence Merritt acted as the muscle/lookout | Merritt argues no sufficient basis to infer muscle role | Commonwealth contends circumstantial and expert evidence established muscle/lookout | Insufficient; the issue is upheld that evidence supports muscle role |
| Whether evidence proves Merritt possessed ecstasy with intent to distribute | Possession/intent not proven by Merritt’s actions alone | Appears to be involved as aider/abetter given role and surrounding circumstances | Sufficient; jury could infer present aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute |
| Whether Merritt transported ecstasy into the Commonwealth with intent to distribute | No direct evidence of his role in transport; speculation | Evidence shows presence and coordination of transport as a lookout | Sufficient; evidence supports aiding/abetting in transportation with intent to distribute |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of conspiracy to distribute | No explicit agreement shown; mere presence insufficient | Circumstantial evidence shows prearranged collaboration | Sufficient; jury could infer conspiracy from multiple connected acts |
Key Cases Cited
- Nolen v. Commonwealth, 53 Va.App. 593 (2009) (sufficiency standard: view evidence in light favorable to Commonwealth)
- Barnes v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 22 (2010) (sufficiency review; rational determination beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (standard for sufficiency; evidence must permit rational conclusion of guilt)
- McMillan v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 11 (2009) (sufficiency; framework for appellate review)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 171 (2009) (sufficiency and circumstantial evidence considerations)
- Clanton v. Commonwealth, 53 Va.App. 561 (2009) (en banc sufficiency principles)
- Hill v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 60 (1989) (credibility and weighing witness testimony on appeal)
- Robertson v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 854 (1991) (standard for witness credibility on appeal)
- Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 451 (2005) (principal in the second degree: present aiding or abetting)
- McGill v. Commonwealth, 24 Va.App. 728 (1997) (aider/abettor principle for principals in the second degree)
- Dunn v. Commonwealth, 52 Va.App. 611 (2008) (en banc considerations on sufficiency)
- Pugliese v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 82 (1993) (constructive possession and aiding)
- Wactor v. Commonwealth, 38 Va.App. 375 (2002) (circumstantial evidence and inferences in sufficiency review)
- Presley v. Commonwealth, 256 Va. 465 (1998) (context for conspiracy and accomplice liability)
- Foster v. Commonwealth, 179 Va. 96 (1942) (principal in the second degree; presence and aid theory)