Reggie Gerald Wilson v. Commonwealth ( 2002 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judge Annunziata and
Senior Judge Overton
Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
REGGIE GERALD WILSON
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 2426-01-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON
JULY 16, 2002
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRY COUNTY
David V. Williams, Judge
Joseph R. Winston, Special Appellate Counsel,
Public Defender Commission, for appellant.
Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General
(Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Reggie Gerald Wilson appeals his bench trial convictions for
possession of cocaine and two counts of distribution of cocaine.
He contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to
strike the evidence. He argues the Commonwealth failed to prove
an adequate chain of custody of the seized substances. For the
reasons that follow, we disagree and affirm his conviction.
BACKGROUND
"On appeal, 'we review the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable
inferences fairly deducible therefrom.'" Archer v.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 1, 11, 492 S.E.2d 826, 831 (1997)
(citation omitted).
So viewed, the evidence proved that on August 25, 2000,
Investigators Burton and White worked on an undercover narcotics
purchase in an area known for drug activity. Soon after their
arrival, Wilson approached the officers. He produced a white
pill bottle containing an off-white rock. Burton paid Wilson
twenty dollars for the rock and returned to the rendezvous site
where he placed the rock in a plastic bag and labeled it.
Shortly thereafter, Wilson again sold a white substance to
Burton, which the officer bagged and labeled. After a brief
foot chase, the officers apprehended Wilson and found more rocks
on his person. All the items were bagged, labeled and sent to
the state laboratory for analysis. The Commonwealth introduced
certificates of analysis stating the substances were cocaine,
without objection from Wilson. He made no motion to exclude the
certificates because of a flaw in the chain nor did he show any
evidence of tampering.
On appeal, Wilson argues the evidence was insufficient to
support his conviction because the Commonwealth's evidence
failed to establish the substances tested were the same
substances he possessed. Wilson failed to object to the
admissibility of the certificates of analysis, but did move to
strike the evidence on the ground of sufficiency.
-2-
"All that is necessary to establish a chain of custody of
exhibits is that the evidence afford reasonable assurance that
the exhibits at trial are the same and in the same condition as
they were when first obtained." Smith v. Commonwealth, 219 Va.
554, 559, 248 S.E.2d 805, 808 (1978). "The Commonwealth is not
required to exclude every conceivable possibility of
substitution, alteration, or tampering." Pope v. Commonwealth,
234 Va. 114, 121, 360 S.E.2d 352, 357 (1987). Burton testified
he collected the samples on August 25, 2000, packaged and
labeled the evidence, and personally delivered it to the state
laboratory on September 6, 2000. "Where there is mere
speculation that contamination or tampering could have occurred,
it is not an abuse of discretion to . . . let what doubt there
may be go to the weight to be given the evidence." Reedy v.
Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 386, 391, 388 S.E.2d 650, 652 (1990).
Here, the trial court, as fact finder, weighed the evidence
and determined the Commonwealth adequately established that the
substances tested were the same ones Burton collected. "The
credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded the
evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has the
opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented."
Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455 S.E.2d 730,
732 (1995). The Commonwealth's evidence was competent, was not
inherently incredible, and was sufficient to prove beyond a
-3-
reasonable doubt that Wilson was guilty of distribution and
possession of cocaine.
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
Affirmed.
-4-