Terrell Dewayne Garnett v. Commonwealth of Virginia
1573152
| Va. Ct. App. | Dec 20, 2016Background
- On April 9, 2015, Garnett was the sole occupant and driver of a car stopped at a checkpoint; officer smelled a strong odor of marijuana.
- Officer Madeline found $528 on Garnett, 2.8 grams of marijuana in the center console, and a backpack in the trunk containing thirty-three small bags totaling 212.4 grams of marijuana.
- A cellular phone was recovered from the vehicle; the officer could not recall precisely where she found it.
- Police obtained a forensic extraction of the phone and sought to admit text messages that Detective Kewish said pertained to drug sales.
- Garnett objected to the text messages on foundation, best evidence, and hearsay grounds; the trial court admitted them, convicted Garnett of possession and possession with intent to distribute (½ oz–5 lbs), and he appealed.
- The Court of Appeals held the admission of the text messages was erroneous for lack of adequate foundation and that the error was not harmless, reversed the conviction for intent-to-distribute, and remanded for a new trial (if the Commonwealth elects), but concluded the totality of trial evidence (including the wrongly-admitted messages) was sufficient to support the verdict under review for purposes of remand law.
Issues
| Issue | Garnett's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication of text messages (foundation/ownership of phone) | Messages were inadmissible because Commonwealth failed to prove Garnett owned or authored messages | Ownership/authorship can be shown circumstantially (phone found in car; Garnett was sole occupant) | Reversed trial court: Commonwealth did not lay adequate foundation; admission was an abuse of discretion |
| Best evidence rule | Electronic text messages (a writing) require proper foundation and originals/carrier records | Forensic extraction of the phone is sufficient circumstantial proof without carrier records | Admission violated authentication requirement; error not harmless |
| Hearsay (texts and sister’s out-of-court statements) | Texts and sister’s statements were hearsay and inadmissible | Texts were probative and linked to distribution; sister’s statements not dispositive | Court did not reach all hearsay contentions because reversal based on authentication error; sister’s hearsay claim not separately resolved |
| Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession/intent to distribute | Without the texts, evidence was insufficient to prove intent to distribute beyond reasonable doubt | Circumstantial evidence (strong odor, cash, 33 packaged bags) supported intent | Court found that, viewing all admitted evidence (statutory requirement), a rational factfinder could find constructive possession with intent; but because messages were wrongly admitted and error not harmless, conviction reversed and remanded for new trial if Commonwealth elects |
Key Cases Cited
- Dalton v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 512 (Va. Ct. App.) (trial court discretion on admissibility review)
- Bloom v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 814 (Va. 2001) (use circumstantial proof to authenticate electronic communications)
- Lassiter v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 605 (Va. Ct. App.) (writing must be authenticated to be admissible)
- Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253 (Va. 2001) (harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional errors)
- Logan v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 437 (Va. Ct. App.) (constructive possession elements)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946) (harmless error/standard for assessing prejudice)