Matthew McHerrin v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2000 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Elder and Lemons
MATTHEW McHERRIN
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0217-99-1 JUDGE DONALD W. LEMONS
MARCH 14, 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS
Edward L. Hubbard, Judge
(Theophlise L. Twitty; Jones and Twitty, on
brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting
on brief.
(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; John H.
McLees, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on
brief.
Matthew McHerrin was convicted in a bench trial for
unlawfully possessing cocaine in violation of Code § 18.2-250.
On appeal, McHerrin contends that the evidence was insufficient
to prove that he possessed the cocaine found by police on the
ground.
I. BACKGROUND
When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his conviction, the evidence and all
reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom will be
considered in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. See
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534,
537 (1975). On August 28, 1997, Newport News police detectives
drove unmarked police cars and a raid van to 717 27th Street to
execute a search warrant for that residence and for the person
of Matthew McHerrin. The police arrived at 8:30 p.m. and saw
McHerrin leaving the residence and walking toward 26th Street
through a vacant, grassy field about "80 feet deep" and to the
west of the residence. Although the porch of the residence was
occupied by numerous males, there was no one in or coming across
the field at that time. Detective Schraudt, who wore blue
jeans, boots and a black raid vest with a gold State Police
badge and the word "Police" in white on the front of the vest,
and the words "State Police" on the back, got out of an unmarked
police car and faced McHerrin. McHerrin then turned and ran
through the vacant lot.
Schraudt identified himself as a police officer and shouted
several times for McHerrin to stop. When McHerrin kept running,
Schraudt and Detectives Coleman and Bell chased him. During the
chase, the detectives saw McHerrin reach into his right pocket,
pull his hand out and then make a throwing motion. When he got
to the back edge of the lot, he took a path through a brushline
that separated it from another vacant lot behind it. As he did
so, when the detectives were about 20-25 feet away from him,
both Schraudt and Coleman saw McHerrin reach his hand into his
left pocket, bring it out and extend it, and then make a motion
- 2 -
in that direction. It was "between [the] time of dark and
light," and at that distance the officers were unable to see an
object leaving his hand.
Schraudt apprehended McHerrin, who had stopped running when
he reached the next street. Coleman had stopped in the field,
and when Schraudt and other officers brought McHerrin back to
that location, they searched with flashlights to find what he
had thrown away. No one had been through the area since the
police had chased McHerrin.
In the area where McHerrin had made the throwing motion,
the police found a "see-through" plastic sandwich bag containing
six individually packaged, one inch by two inch baggies of what
appeared to be heroin. Also in the area, the police found items
of trash, such as beer bottles, gum wrappers, and paper. It had
been raining until about an hour before the raid, and Schraudt
noticed that the ground and all the items of trash found in the
area were wet, but the bag of drugs was not. The substance in
the baggies proved to be .76 gram of cocaine, rather than
heroin.
II. ANALYSIS
When a conviction is based entirely on circumstantial
evidence, all necessary circumstances proved must be consistent
with guilt and inconsistent with innocence and must exclude
every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See Bishop v.
Commonwealth, 227 Va. 164, 169, 313 S.E.2d 390, 393 (1984).
- 3 -
"The circumstances of motive, time, place, means, and conduct
must all concur to form an unbroken chain which link the
defendant to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Id.In Collins v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 177, 409 S.E.2d 175(1991), a police officer drove his patrol car into a dimly lit
parking lot and stopped approximately thirty feet behind
Collins, who was sitting in a parked vehicle. When Collins
exited the car, the officer saw him make "a throwing motion
under the vehicle with his right arm." Id. at 178, 409 S.E.2d
at 175. The officer immediately approached the car, shined his
flashlight underneath the car and found a plastic baggie
containing 14 smaller baggies of a white substance. There was
nothing else under the car. We held that the evidence was
sufficient to prove that the defendant possessed the cocaine and
had thrown it under the car. We relied primarily on the
reasonableness of the fact finder's inferences stemming from the
evidence presented and observed,
[t]he court could have found that [the
defendant] was merely off balance as he
exited the car, or that he slipped and was
attempting to catch himself. But the court
did not so find. Instead, the court found
that [the defendant] in fact threw drugs
under the vehicle and that finding is
binding on us, unless it is incredible or
plainly wrong. It is neither under the
facts in this record.
The trial court was not unmindful of
[the defendant's] argument that the cocaine
might have already been under his car. The
judge discounted this possibility, observing
- 4 -
that the cocaine was "something of
significant value and not something that one
is likely to have abandoned or carelessly
left in the area there."
Id. at 179-80, 409 S.E.2d at 176.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, there was sufficient evidence from which the trial
judge could find that appellant had actual possession of the
cocaine and knew of the nature and character of the substance.
Appellant fled after being alerted to clearly visible signs of
police officers. Detective Schraudt wore his police badge and
vest and after McHerrin turned and ran, he ignored Schraudt's
several calls to stop. While not sufficient alone to convict,
such actions indicate guilty knowledge. See Johnson v.
Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 150, 153, 402 S.E.2d 502, 504 (1991).
Appellant then, on two occasions, reached into his pocket,
pulled his hand out and made throwing motions during the
pursuit. He did not stop running until he had distanced himself
from those areas where he made the throwing motions. At one of
the locations where police officers saw the appellant's throwing
motion, the drugs were found amidst the trash and other debris.
"Possession of a drug prohibited by law may be shown by
'evidence of acts, declarations or conduct of the accused from
which the inference may be fairly drawn that he knew of the
existence of the narcotics at the place where they were found.'"
Beverly v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 160, 164, 403 S.E.2d 175,
- 5 -
177 (1991) (quoting Womack v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 5, 7, 255
S.E.2d 351, 352 (1979)). No other persons were observed in the
field; it was a relatively private area rather than a public
thoroughfare; and very little time elapsed between when the
defendant was seen making a throwing motion and when the cocaine
was retrieved. See Johnson, 12 Va. App. at 153, 402 S.E.2d at
504 (stating that "the drugs were found in a relatively private
area" in affirming a conviction for possession of cocaine with
intent to distribute).
The package containing the cocaine was distinguished from
the trash because, although lying in an open field, it was not
wet. The trial judge could have reasonably inferred that the
plastic bag had been dropped there since the rain had stopped.
Additionally, because it is common knowledge that cocaine has
value on the illicit market, it was highly unlikely that someone
would have abandoned the drugs there like trash. See Brown v.
Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 1, 9, 421 S.E.2d 877, 883 (1992) (en
banc); Collins, 13 Va. App. at 180, 409 S.E.2d at 176.
Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.
- 6 -