132 A.3d 694
R.I.2016Background
- Defendant Francisco Maria was tried for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver after a June 29, 2011 search of his Providence residence uncovered 9 baggies of cocaine in a dresser, additional baggies, a digital scale, and a bag of cocaine seized from his person; total tested weight was 33.43 grams.
- Surveillance by multiple officers in May–June 2011 placed defendant at a target property where he was observed meeting the same individual (Michael White) on multiple occasions, briefly disappearing from view during visits, and receiving visitors arriving and leaving in short intervals.
- Officers executed a search warrant at defendant’s residence; items seized included a Dominican passport in defendant’s name, bank statements, a digital scale, clear plastic bags, and a machete-type knife; a field test of the substance from defendant’s pocket was positive for cocaine.
- At the close of the state’s case, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal arguing insufficient evidence of intent to deliver; the trial justice denied the motion.
- The State requested a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple possession; defendant objected at trial (to preserve trial strategy) and the trial justice denied the State’s request. The jury convicted defendant of possession with intent to deliver.
- On appeal, defendant challenged (1) denial of the judgment of acquittal (insufficient evidence of intent to deliver) and (2) the trial justice’s failure to instruct the jury on simple possession; the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for intent to deliver | State: Surveillance, frequent visitors, packaged drugs, scale, and quantity justify an inference of intent to deliver | Maria: 33.43 g and circumstances insufficient; no direct evidence of sales | Affirmed: Viewed favorably to State, quantity + scale + packaging + surveillance suffice to allow reasonable juror to infer intent to deliver |
| Failure to give lesser-included instruction (simple possession) | State: Requested instruction below; argues error in omission now | Maria: Objected at trial to giving the instruction (trial strategy); on appeal reversed position and asks for instruction | Waived: Defendant objected at trial to the instruction and cannot reverse position on appeal; issue not considered on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Oliveira, 882 A.2d 1097 (R.I. 2005) (elements for possession with intent to deliver)
- State v. Williams, 656 A.2d 975 (R.I. 1995) (possession, control, and intent elements)
- State v. Rodriguez, 10 A.3d 431 (R.I. 2010) (quantity alone may support inference of intent to deliver)
- State v. Eiseman, 461 A.2d 369 (R.I. 1983) (large quantity without other indicia may be insufficient by itself)
- State v. Reed, 764 A.2d 144 (R.I. 2001) (surveillance plus packaged quantities can support intent to deliver)
- State v. Gomez, 116 A.3d 216 (R.I. 2015) (standard of review for denial of judgment of acquittal)