Ramirez v. United States
49 A.3d 1246
| D.C. | 2012Background
- Ramirez was charged with PWID and possession of drug paraphernalia; he was acquitted of PWID but convicted of possession of cocaine and paraphernalia.
- Police executed a 1445 Otis Street, N.W. apartment search on April 23, 2010, after a knock-and-announce entry.
- Ramirez resided in the apartment; he pointed to the living room bed when asked where he resided.
- In the kitchen, police found 43 ziplock bags with a white powdery substance and scales; a plate with residue and running faucet suggested possible disposal.
- In a closet near Ramirez’s bed, officers found a ziplock with cocaine, a backpack with a digital scale, a jacket with cash and Ramirez mail, and photos; additional drugs were found in Luna’s bedroom.
- An expert testified that cocaine is commonly packaged in ziplock bags and weighed on scales; DOJ chemist would testify the closet bag contained 0.11 g and kitchen bags contained 27.2 g of cocaine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of possession evidence | Ramirez argues the evidence fails to prove possession. | Government contends circumstantial evidence shows Ramirez’s dominion over the drugs. | Sufficient evidence supports constructive possession |
| Jury instruction on paraphernalia count | One ziplock bag cannot sustain the count if not supported by indictment. | Trial court correctly framed that a single bag could suffice if elements met. | No reversible error; no broadening of indictment |
| Indictment amendment/indictment scope | Responding to jury note effectively amended the indictment by lowering the standard. | No amendment occurred; grand jury charged ziplock bags generally. | No reversible error; indictment not broadened |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. United States, 927 A.2d 1040 (D.C. 2007) (constructive possession supported by totality of circumstances)
- Davis v. United States, 623 A.2d 601 (D.C. 1998) (lived in the bedroom where drugs were found; personal clothing and papers tied to defendant)
- Rivas v. United States, 783 A.2d 125 (D.C. 2001) (constructive possession requires more than mere presence; totality of circumstances)
- Wooley v. United States, 697 A.2d 777 (D.C. 1997) (indictment breadth and trial conduct must align with grand jury charges)
- Woodall v. United States, 684 A.2d 1258 (D.C. 1996) (ensure charges align with grand jury; improper broadening possible)