Appellant Edmonds was indicted for distribution of cocaine and for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute it (PWID), both in violation of D.C. Code § 33-541(a)(1) (1988). In the same indictment Theodore Middleton was charged with possession of cocaine, D.C. Code § 33-541(d).1 After a jury trial, Edmonds was acquitted on the *1132 charge of distribution but was found guilty of PWID. On appeal he contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.
The evidence, viewed as it must be in the light most favorable to the government,2 showed that Edmonds handed Middleton a ziplock plastic bag as they both stood near the entrance to an alley. An undercover police officer, Michael Rorie, driving past in an unmarked car, saw this transfer clearly from a distance of ten to fifteen feet. Within "a matter of seconds" Rorie arrested Middleton, searched him, and found a single piece of crack cocaine in his possession. Meanwhile, Rorie's partner, Officer Stephen Ellis, turned his attention to Edmonds and saw him throw something to the ground which appeared to be a piece of brown paper.3 It landed about five feet from where Edmonds was standing. Ellis immediately arrested Edmonds while another officer recovered the thrown object, which turned out to be a brown paper bag containing five smaller ziplock bags, each of which contained a quantity of crack cocaine.4 An expert witness testified that when police officers arrive in an area where there are drug sellers, the sellers "try to get rid of the drugs that they have on them either by throwing them, hiding them, dropping them, or some other way of . . . distancing themselves from the drugs." The expert also said that crack cocaine for street sale is commonly packaged in small ziplock bags which sell for about $20 per bag.
Edmonds contends that this evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to distribute any drugs. We disagree. Although the jury acquitted him of the actual distribution of cocaine to Mr. Middleton,5 the evidence of that distribution could still be considered by the jury as establishing an intent to distribute. See Ware v. UnitedStates,
Affirmed.
