Sidi O. Jiddou v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1910182

Background

In 2015 Jiddou obtained a Sam’s Club business membership for “Cigarette Express” by submitting a Virginia ST-10 (exemption) and an ST-4 (registration). The business license expired and Jiddou sold the business at the end of 2015 and did not notify the Department of Taxation.
In February 2017 Jiddou used the Cigarette Express membership to buy large quantities of cigarettes at Sam’s Club: Feb. 13 (240 cartons), Feb. 16 (220 cartons), and Feb. 22 (220 cartons), paying with cash; store records and video/receipt evidence tied the purchases to the membership card.
The Department audited after Jiddou’s arrest and notified in March 2017 that the ST-10 was invalid; Department witnesses testified that a ST-10 depends on a valid ST-4 and that an ST-4 expires when the business ceases.
Jiddou was convicted by a jury of two counts of fraudulently purchasing cigarettes under Va. Code § 58.1‑1017.3 (Feb. 13 & 16), three counts of possessing with intent to distribute 40,000+ tax‑paid cigarettes under Va. Code § 58.1‑1017.1 (three dates), and two counts of money laundering under Va. Code § 18.2‑246.3 (Feb. 16 & 22).
On appeal Jiddou argued (a) the ST‑10 remained valid until written revocation, so the purchases were lawful; (b) insufficiency of evidence on key elements (that items were cigarettes, were tax‑stamped, and were possessed with intent to distribute); (c) the Commonwealth improperly elected a jury trial after a bench trial setting; and (d) admission of testimony linking cigarette trafficking to terrorism and references to his national origin was prejudicial.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held the ST‑10 was invalid in February 2017 because the ST‑4 had expired when the business ceased; the evidence was sufficient on purchase, tax‑stamping inference, and intent to distribute; the Commonwealth properly elected a jury; and any challenge to the terrorism/nationality testimony was waived.

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Jiddou's Argument	Held
Whether purchases in Feb 2017 violated § 58.1‑1017.3 because the ST‑10 was not revoked in writing	ST‑10 was invalid because it depends on a valid ST‑4, and the ST‑4 expired when the business ceased, so purchases used an invalid certificate	ST‑10 language says it "shall remain in effect until revoked in writing by the Department," so it remained valid absent written revocation	Held: ST‑10 was invalid in Feb 2017 because the ST‑4 had expired when the business ceased; jury could find the certificate invalid despite no written revocation
Sufficiency: were the purchased items cigarettes and tax‑stamped?	Store records, receipts, surveillance, and testimony showed purchases of branded cigarettes from Sam’s Club, which sells sealed cartons supplied by a licensed stamper, supporting inference of tax stamps	Records listed brand names, not the word "cigarettes," and prosecution did not directly prove stamps on the packs	Held: Evidence sufficient — brand names, video, receipts, and vendor practices supported that items were tax‑stamped cigarettes
Sufficiency: intent to distribute (§ 58.1‑1017.1) and money laundering (§ 18.2‑246.3)	Large cash purchases (40,000+ cigarettes each time) over short period, expert testimony on trafficking, and lack of sales‑tax records support intent to distribute and predicate felony for money laundering	Purchases could be for personal or legitimate business use; challenges to predicate felony undermine laundering counts	Held: Evidence sufficient for intent to distribute and thus supports money‑laundering convictions
Whether the Commonwealth waived its right to a jury by earlier agreeing to a bench trial setting	Commonwealth may elect a jury so long as no valid waiver by parties and court; no waiver on record	Jiddou contended Commonwealth waived its right by prior bench trial setting and delay	Held: No waiver; trial court properly granted Commonwealth’s request for a jury trial
Admissibility: testimony linking cigarette trafficking to terrorism and references to national origin	Testimony addressed global impacts of trafficking; defense opened door on national origin; no contemporaneous objection was made at trial	Testimony was prejudicial, connected Jiddou to terrorism and his national origin, and should have been excluded	Held: Issue waived for failure to object at trial; ends‑of‑justice exception not applied because convictions were supported by the record

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for assessing sufficiency of the evidence)
Marshall v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 648 (2019) (appellate review views evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
Wright v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 303 (1987) (bench trial requires knowing waiver by defendant and concurrence of Commonwealth and court)
King v. Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 364 (2003) (Commonwealth has an equal voice in choosing jury trial)
Bloom v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 814 (2001) (role of jury in weighing evidence)
Hicks v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 289 Va. 288 (2015) (ends‑of‑justice exception to contemporaneous‑objection rule is limited)