TRAVIS MCRAE v. UNITED STATES
148 A.3d 269
| D.C. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 15, 2013 police chased Travis McRae from outside 208 36th St. N.E.; officers found his jacket in an alley with his ID, apartment keys, and a plastic bag containing 22.7 grams of marijuana.
- Police obtained and searched Apartment 4 (McRae’s listed residence) and found McRae’s photo and papers, a digital scale, 175 empty ziplock bags (most very small), 31 reddish bags (small), and a loaded handgun.
- Detective George Thomas testified as a drugs expert: some of the bags and the scale can be used for distribution, marijuana is sometimes sold by the ounce but users also buy ounces, and one ounce would take a long time to consume even for a heavy user. He estimated the jacket amount would yield ~$220–230 if sold by the gram.
- The jury convicted McRae of possession with intent to distribute (PWID) and possession of drug paraphernalia, but acquitted him on firearm-related charges. McRae appealed the PWID conviction challenging sufficiency of evidence of intent to distribute.
- The court evaluated whether the quantity, packaging, paraphernalia in the apartment, and flight supported a rational jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt that McRae intended to distribute the 22.7 grams found on him.
Issues
| Issue | McRae's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove McRae possessed 22.7 g of marijuana with intent to distribute | The amount, packaging, and paraphernalia did not show intent to distribute; amount consistent with personal use | Quantity, packaging, scale, many baggies in apartment, and flight support inference of intent to distribute | Reversed PWID conviction; evidence insufficient to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt; remand for simple possession conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Rivas v. United States, 783 A.2d 125 (D.C. 2001) (appellate standard and limits on permissible inferences)
- Taylor v. United States, 662 A.2d 1368 (D.C. 1995) (expert testimony and quantity/packaging can support intent to distribute)
- Johnson v. United States, 40 A.3d 1 (D.C. 2012) (large quantities can support inference of distribution)
- Earle v. United States, 612 A.2d 1258 (D.C. 1992) (packaging in street-sale amounts supports PWID)
- Chambers v. United States, 564 A.2d 26 (D.C. 1989) (separate packaging as evidence of distribution)
- Brockington v. United States, 699 A.2d 1117 (D.C. 1997) (remanding to lesser-included offense when intent element not proven)