Wells v. Commonwealth
2 Va. App. 549, 3 Va. Law Rep. 101, 347 S.E.2d 139 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Circumstantial evidence of intent to distribute a controlled substance, such as quantity and packaging, is insufficient for a conviction if it does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, such as possession for personal use.
Facts:
- On November 13, 1984, police executed a search warrant at the apartment of Nancy Meadows.
- Ruth Ellen Wells, a friend of Meadows, was present during the search.
- While officers were in the apartment, Wells stated without being questioned, “What you find back there is mine.”
- Police found a brown bag in a dresser drawer containing 4.2 ounces of marijuana.
- The marijuana was divided into seven sandwich baggies, which collectively held seventy small plastic baggie corners, each containing marijuana.
- The total value of the marijuana was estimated to be $700.
- The search of the apartment and of Wells's person revealed no drug-related paraphernalia or unusual amounts of money.
Procedural Posture:
- Ruth Ellen Wells was tried by a jury in a Virginia trial court.
- At the close of the Commonwealth's evidence, Wells's attorney made a motion to strike the evidence as insufficient to prove intent to distribute, which the trial court overruled.
- After presenting no evidence, Wells renewed the motion to strike, which the trial court again overruled.
- The jury convicted Wells of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
- Wells appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the possession of 4.2 ounces of marijuana, packaged in 70 individual baggie corners, without the presence of drug paraphernalia or large amounts of cash, constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove intent to distribute beyond a reasonable doubt?
Opinions:
Majority - Koontz, C.J.
No. The evidence is insufficient to prove intent to distribute. When the Commonwealth’s case for intent to distribute is wholly circumstantial, the evidence must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence, excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. While the quantity possessed is a factor, the 4.2 ounces in this case was not so great as to be inconsistent with personal use over time. Furthermore, an officer testified that the packaging was as consistent with a method of purchase as with an intent to distribute. The absence of other indicia of distribution, such as paraphernalia or significant amounts of money, makes the hypothesis that Wells possessed the marijuana for her personal use a reasonable one that the Commonwealth failed to disprove.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high evidentiary standard required to prove intent to distribute based solely on circumstantial evidence. It clarifies that quantity and packaging, while relevant, are not dispositive on their own and can be consistent with personal use. The decision provides a strong precedent for defendants, emphasizing that the prosecution must present evidence that refutes reasonable hypotheses of innocence, rather than simply raising a suspicion of guilt. This holding requires courts to carefully scrutinize the totality of the circumstances, especially the absence of classic indicators of drug trafficking like scales, ledgers, or large sums of cash.
