DocketNumber: 18-P-131
Citation Numbers: 122 N.E.3d 1101, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 1118
Filed Date: 1/28/2019
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/24/2022
After a jury-waived trial, the defendant was convicted of possession of a class D controlled substance with the intent to distribute. On appeal, he claims the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We agree and therefore reverse.
After observing a car committing two civil motor vehicle infractions, a State police trooper stopped the car. The defendant was the operator and Duran Randall was the passenger. The car was not registered, and it did not belong, to either man. Both occupants were extremely nervous, with their hands shaking and their chests heaving. The car also had "quite a few" air fresheners in the passenger compartment. Upon confirming that neither the defendant nor Randall possessed a valid driver's license, the trooper decided to have the car towed. Before the tow truck arrived, the trooper conducted an inventory search of the car. In the trunk, he discovered a bag containing four individually packaged bags of marijuana weighing approximately four pounds in the aggregate. There was nothing else found in the trunk, i.e., no personal effects belonging to the defendant or Randall. No contraband, drug paraphernalia, weapons, or any indicia of drug sales, were found in the passenger compartment or in possession of either occupant. Neither of the two men made an incriminating statement at that time, and both denied ownership of the marijuana.
This case is controlled in all material respects by Commonwealth v. Garcia,
While the nervousness of the occupants and the presence of air fresheners, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, may be indicators of nefarious activity, see Commonwealth v. Sinforoso,
Judgment reversed.
Finding set aside.
Judgment for the defendant.
Here, Randall made an incriminating statement at the police station, which warranted an inference that he had knowledge of the marijuana and, in turn, justified the denial of his motion for a required finding of not guilty.
Given the result we reach, we need not discuss the defendant's alternative argument relative to the sufficiency of the evidence of his intent to distribute the marijuana.