COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Willis and Senior Judge Hodges Argued at Richmond, Virginia
JOSEPH LEWIS McCOY MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0858-01-2 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. AUGUST 6, 2002 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND Thomas N. Nance, Judge
Brian J. Grossman (Eck, Collins & Marstiller, on brief), for appellant.
Linwood T. Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (Randolph A. Beales, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the
evidence was sufficient to prove Joseph Lewis McCoy possessed
heroin found in another person's apartment. We reverse the
conviction.
I.
A grand jury indicted Joseph Lewis McCoy for possession of
heroin with the intent to distribute in violation of Code
§ 18.2-248. At trial, the Commonwealth's evidence proved that
several police officers went to a building to execute search
warrants at two apartments. In the backyard of the building, they
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. encountered two men, one of whom had a walkie-talkie. No evidence
associated the men with the apartments to be searched. After
ordering the men to the ground, the officers simultaneously
approached the apartments and gained entry to the downstairs
apartment by battering the rear door, which had been fortified
with a wooden board. When the officers entered the apartment
through the kitchen, they loudly announced their presence. An
officer went into a hallway and hesitated because a dog was there.
He then saw McCoy and another man run from the middle room to the
living room. Entering the living room, the officer saw McCoy and
two men seated on the sofa. The officer testified that the door
in the living room led to the exterior and to stairs going to the
apartment upstairs. He also testified that the men did not try to
escape from the apartment.
In the middle room on a table, the officers found pieces of
heroin and "individually knotted bag corners" containing heroin.
Currency and packaging material were scattered throughout the
room. In the living room, the officers discovered "a pile of
approximately twenty hits of the heroin . . . partially shoved
under a rug." Two of the "hits" were in plain view, and the other
eighteen were "under the carpet." A trail of small knotted bags
went from the middle room to the living room. One of the men
sitting on the sofa near McCoy had heroin in his pocket.
When the officers arrested McCoy and searched him, the
officer found no heroin on McCoy's person or in his clothing.
- 2 - After the officer advised McCoy of Miranda rights and asked what
he was doing in the apartment, McCoy "said that he was visiting
his girlfriend [in the] upstairs . . . apartment . . . and that he
had made breakfast and had come down to visit the girl that lives
in [the downstairs] apartment . . . , who was not present there."
McCoy said "he had been there . . . approximately a half an hour."
When "asked if he knew what was going on there[, McCoy] . . . said
he didn't." Later, at the police station, when asked whether he
used drugs, McCoy said "he didn't abuse it but he was using every
day." The officer did not "recall exactly whether [McCoy]
specified heroin or not" but thought "it was just drugs."
In the upstairs apartment, the officers discovered a handgun
in a bedroom under a mattress, heroin "in plain view on a dresser"
in that bedroom, and syringes in the top drawer of that dresser.
The only person present in the upstairs apartment was a woman
identified as McCoy's "girlfriend." When the officers asked McCoy
if he lived upstairs, McCoy said he did not and indicated "he
stayed there off and on but didn't live there." McCoy also said
he did not know anything about the items the officers seized
upstairs.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial judge granted
McCoy's motion to dismiss the charge of intent to distribute and
denied McCoy's motion to dismiss the possession charge. The trial
judge convicted McCoy of possession of heroin. This appeal
followed.
- 3 - II.
The evidence did not prove McCoy had actual possession of the
heroin. In addition, no evidence proved McCoy lived in either
apartment. "To support a conviction based upon constructive
possession, 'the Commonwealth must point to evidence of acts,
statements, or conduct of the accused or other facts or
circumstances which tend to show that the defendant was aware of
both the presence and character of the substance and that it was
subject to his dominion and control.'" Drew v. Commonwealth, 230
Va. 471, 473, 338 S.E.2d 844, 845 (1986) (quoting Powers v.
Commonwealth, 227 Va. 474, 476, 316 S.E.2d 739, 740 (1984)).
McCoy was not present in the upstairs apartment when the
officers found heroin in the bedroom. Only the woman identified
as McCoy's "girlfriend" was present when the heroin was found. As
in Drew and Garland v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 182, 300 S.E.2d 783
(1983), this evidence was insufficient to prove McCoy
constructively possessed the heroin in the upstairs apartment.
Although McCoy was in the downstairs apartment, no evidence
tended to show the heroin was subject to McCoy's dominion and
control. As the Supreme Court has held, "mere proximity to a
controlled drug is not sufficient to establish dominion and
control." Drew, 230 Va. at 473, 338 S.E.2d at 845 (citing Wright
v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 669, 670, 232 S.E.2d 733, 734 (1977);
Fogg v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 394, 395, 219 S.E.2d 672, 673
(1975)).
- 4 - In many respects, the facts and circumstances concerning the
heroin in the downstairs apartment resemble those in Huvar v.
Commonwealth, 212 Va. 667, 187 S.E.2d 177 (1972). There, the
Supreme Court ruled as follows:
The only evidence which connects defendant with the drugs involved here is his presence in the apartment when they were found, and the fact that he had the appearance of one who may have been using drugs. There is no evidence that defendant owned, possessed or exercised any control over these specific drugs.
It is the theory of the Commonwealth that the police interrupted a "pot party." One could reasonably reach this conclusion from the evidence. However, the mere presence of defendant at the party is not sufficient to convict him of actual or constructive possession of the drugs that were found there. It was not his apartment. Those present were not shown to have been his guests or there at his invitation. None of the prescription containers in which some of the drugs were found bore his name on their labels. He made no statement, committed no act and indulged in no conduct from which the inference could be fairly drawn that he possessed or controlled the drugs which the police found.
Id. at 668, 187 S.E.2d at 178.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Willis and Senior Judge Hodges Argued at Richmond, Virginia
JOSEPH LEWIS McCOY MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0858-01-2 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. AUGUST 6, 2002 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND Thomas N. Nance, Judge
Brian J. Grossman (Eck, Collins & Marstiller, on brief), for appellant.
Linwood T. Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (Randolph A. Beales, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the
evidence was sufficient to prove Joseph Lewis McCoy possessed
heroin found in another person's apartment. We reverse the
conviction.
I.
A grand jury indicted Joseph Lewis McCoy for possession of
heroin with the intent to distribute in violation of Code
§ 18.2-248. At trial, the Commonwealth's evidence proved that
several police officers went to a building to execute search
warrants at two apartments. In the backyard of the building, they
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. encountered two men, one of whom had a walkie-talkie. No evidence
associated the men with the apartments to be searched. After
ordering the men to the ground, the officers simultaneously
approached the apartments and gained entry to the downstairs
apartment by battering the rear door, which had been fortified
with a wooden board. When the officers entered the apartment
through the kitchen, they loudly announced their presence. An
officer went into a hallway and hesitated because a dog was there.
He then saw McCoy and another man run from the middle room to the
living room. Entering the living room, the officer saw McCoy and
two men seated on the sofa. The officer testified that the door
in the living room led to the exterior and to stairs going to the
apartment upstairs. He also testified that the men did not try to
escape from the apartment.
In the middle room on a table, the officers found pieces of
heroin and "individually knotted bag corners" containing heroin.
Currency and packaging material were scattered throughout the
room. In the living room, the officers discovered "a pile of
approximately twenty hits of the heroin . . . partially shoved
under a rug." Two of the "hits" were in plain view, and the other
eighteen were "under the carpet." A trail of small knotted bags
went from the middle room to the living room. One of the men
sitting on the sofa near McCoy had heroin in his pocket.
When the officers arrested McCoy and searched him, the
officer found no heroin on McCoy's person or in his clothing.
- 2 - After the officer advised McCoy of Miranda rights and asked what
he was doing in the apartment, McCoy "said that he was visiting
his girlfriend [in the] upstairs . . . apartment . . . and that he
had made breakfast and had come down to visit the girl that lives
in [the downstairs] apartment . . . , who was not present there."
McCoy said "he had been there . . . approximately a half an hour."
When "asked if he knew what was going on there[, McCoy] . . . said
he didn't." Later, at the police station, when asked whether he
used drugs, McCoy said "he didn't abuse it but he was using every
day." The officer did not "recall exactly whether [McCoy]
specified heroin or not" but thought "it was just drugs."
In the upstairs apartment, the officers discovered a handgun
in a bedroom under a mattress, heroin "in plain view on a dresser"
in that bedroom, and syringes in the top drawer of that dresser.
The only person present in the upstairs apartment was a woman
identified as McCoy's "girlfriend." When the officers asked McCoy
if he lived upstairs, McCoy said he did not and indicated "he
stayed there off and on but didn't live there." McCoy also said
he did not know anything about the items the officers seized
upstairs.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial judge granted
McCoy's motion to dismiss the charge of intent to distribute and
denied McCoy's motion to dismiss the possession charge. The trial
judge convicted McCoy of possession of heroin. This appeal
followed.
- 3 - II.
The evidence did not prove McCoy had actual possession of the
heroin. In addition, no evidence proved McCoy lived in either
apartment. "To support a conviction based upon constructive
possession, 'the Commonwealth must point to evidence of acts,
statements, or conduct of the accused or other facts or
circumstances which tend to show that the defendant was aware of
both the presence and character of the substance and that it was
subject to his dominion and control.'" Drew v. Commonwealth, 230
Va. 471, 473, 338 S.E.2d 844, 845 (1986) (quoting Powers v.
Commonwealth, 227 Va. 474, 476, 316 S.E.2d 739, 740 (1984)).
McCoy was not present in the upstairs apartment when the
officers found heroin in the bedroom. Only the woman identified
as McCoy's "girlfriend" was present when the heroin was found. As
in Drew and Garland v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 182, 300 S.E.2d 783
(1983), this evidence was insufficient to prove McCoy
constructively possessed the heroin in the upstairs apartment.
Although McCoy was in the downstairs apartment, no evidence
tended to show the heroin was subject to McCoy's dominion and
control. As the Supreme Court has held, "mere proximity to a
controlled drug is not sufficient to establish dominion and
control." Drew, 230 Va. at 473, 338 S.E.2d at 845 (citing Wright
v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 669, 670, 232 S.E.2d 733, 734 (1977);
Fogg v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 394, 395, 219 S.E.2d 672, 673
(1975)).
- 4 - In many respects, the facts and circumstances concerning the
heroin in the downstairs apartment resemble those in Huvar v.
Commonwealth, 212 Va. 667, 187 S.E.2d 177 (1972). There, the
Supreme Court ruled as follows:
The only evidence which connects defendant with the drugs involved here is his presence in the apartment when they were found, and the fact that he had the appearance of one who may have been using drugs. There is no evidence that defendant owned, possessed or exercised any control over these specific drugs.
It is the theory of the Commonwealth that the police interrupted a "pot party." One could reasonably reach this conclusion from the evidence. However, the mere presence of defendant at the party is not sufficient to convict him of actual or constructive possession of the drugs that were found there. It was not his apartment. Those present were not shown to have been his guests or there at his invitation. None of the prescription containers in which some of the drugs were found bore his name on their labels. He made no statement, committed no act and indulged in no conduct from which the inference could be fairly drawn that he possessed or controlled the drugs which the police found.
Id. at 668, 187 S.E.2d at 178.
Likewise, in Wright, the defendant was in another person's
apartment. When the police arrived, the defendant was in a
bedroom where heroin was openly displayed and a person was using
heroin. 217 Va. at 669, 232 S.E.2d at 733. Finding a lack of
evidence to prove the defendant constructively possessed the
heroin, the Court held as follows:
- 5 - In the present case, the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Wright did not live in the apartment, no heroin was found in his actual possession, and there is no evidence that the heroin was shared with Carter or that it was under Wright's dominion or control. To infer that Wright put the heroin under the dresser when warned that the police were on the premises would be to engage in speculation and conjecture. The interval of time between the closing of the door to the bedroom by Carter's wife and the entrance of the police must have been short because Carter had not dropped the syringe before the officers appeared. Mere proximity of Wright to the packages was not sufficient to establish constructive possession, and the conviction of possession with intent to distribute cannot be sustained.
Id. at 670-71, 232 S.E.2d at 734.
As in those cases, the evidence in this record was
insufficient to prove McCoy exercised dominion and control over
the heroin in the downstairs apartment he was visiting or in the
upstairs apartment where his female friend lived. Accordingly,
we reverse the conviction and dismiss the indictment.
Reversed and dismissed.
- 6 -