Tamica Monique Green, s/k/a Tamika Green v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1355204

Appellant Tamica Monique Green was convicted in a bench trial of possession of a controlled substance (Code § 18.2-250) after police found a vape pen in her purse and forensic analysis revealed cocaine in the cartridge.
Police responded to a domestic dispute at her mother's home; officers observed Green appearing intoxicated and the mother expressed concern Green was using PCP.
Green consented to a search of her purse; the vape pen was recovered from that purse.
Green testified the vape pen was hers, that she used vaping to quit cigarettes, that a friend (Anthony Campbell) often had access to her belongings, and she could not pinpoint the last day she used the pen. She denied knowing the cartridge contained cocaine.
The trial court found Green’s evasive testimony (unable to identify last use; distancing from the exact pen) and the surrounding circumstances supported an inference she knew the pen contained drugs, and convicted.
On appeal Green argued the evidence was insufficient to prove she knew the nature/character of the substance; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence sufficient to prove Green knew the nature and character of the substance in the vape pen?	Commonwealth: Circumstantial evidence—possession, officer observation she appeared under influence, mother’s concern, and Green’s evasive testimony—supports inference of knowledge.	Green: Only proximity/ownership shown; no direct proof she knew cartridge contained cocaine—similar to Young and Yerling.	Affirmed: A rational factfinder could infer knowledge from possession plus surrounding circumstances and evasive testimony.

Young v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 587 (knowledge of nature and character is an essential element; mere possession is insufficient)
Yerling v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 527 (reversing where only proximity/possession shown and no evidence of guilty knowledge)
Dietz v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 123 (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
Poole v. Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 357 (trier of fact may discount self‑serving statements as attempts to conceal guilt)
Covil v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 692 (false or evasive accounts are evidence of guilty knowledge)
Sierra v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 770 (officer testimony about indicators of contraband can be relevant but is not strictly necessary)