Horace L. Taylor v. Commonwealth

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Willis and Bray
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
HORACE L. TAYLOR
v. Record No. 1976-93-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MAY 30, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK
Rodham T. Delk, Jr., Judge
Timothy E. Miller, Public Defender, for appellant.
Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General (James S.
Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Horace L. Taylor (defendant) was convicted in a bench trial of
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Defendant
complains on appeal that the trial court erroneously admitted into
evidence the certificate of analysis related to the offending drugs
and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his
conviction. We affirm the trial court.
Under familiar principles of appellate review, we must examine
the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible
therefrom. Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d
415, 418 (1987). The judgment of a trial court, sitting without a
jury, is entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict and will be
disturbed only if plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.
Id. The credibility of a witness, the weight accorded the
testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from proven facts are
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated
for publication.
matters solely for the fact finder's determination. Long v.
Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 194, 199, 379 S.E.2d 473, 476 (1989).
During a search of defendant's trailer, Suffolk Police
Officers J. H. Jackson and Gary Parker discovered a "black metal
box" containing numerous individual "bags" of suspected marijuana
having a "street" value of "between ten and twenty dollars" each.
Additional suspected marijuana and drug paraphernalia, including a
set of scales, and "several small ziplock bags," were also located
in the trailer. Defendant acknowledged ownership of all items.
Officer Jackson retained exclusive custody and control of the
evidence in issue, which he packaged, sealed, and identified by an
assigned case number. He prepared a like numbered "Request for
Laboratory Examination" which referenced, inter alia, "15 zip-lock
baggies with suspected marijuana contained inside," and personally
delivered the evidence to the "lab," where it received an
additional numeric designation. Subsequently, Jackson received a
"Certificate of Analysis," numbered consistent with the evidence
submitted and accompanied by the original packaging. However, the
certificate described "Sixteen (16) plastic bags, each containing
. . . [m]arijuana." (Emphasis added.) Jackson assumed
responsibility for this discrepancy and attributed it to a "real
fast" count.
"The admissibility of evidence is within the broad discretion
of the trial court, and a ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in
the absence of an abuse of discretion." Blain v. Commonwealth, 7
Va. App. 10, 16, 371 S.E.2d 838, 842 (1988) (citation omitted).
- 2 -
"Evidence of the 'physical or chemical properties of an item . . .
requires proof of the chain of custody' to establish '"with
reasonable certainty"' that the material was not '"altered,
substituted, or contaminated"' prior to its analysis." Gosling v.
Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 158, 166, 415 S.E.2d 870, 874 (1992)
(citations omitted). "Although it is not necessary to exclude
every possibility that the substance was tainted, the record must
account for every '"vital link in the chain of possession."'"
Crews v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 115, 119, 442 S.E.2d 407, 409
(1994) (citations omitted).
Here, the record does not suggest any taint or contamination
of the evidence, either before or during analysis. The bags were
collectively marked and packaged prior to the analysis and
correspondingly identified in relation to it, both by the lab and
Jackson. See Code § 19.2-187.01. The discrepancy in count was
explained by Jackson. Thus, the requisite chain of custody was
clearly established and the disputed certificate of analysis was
properly received into evidence. See Code § 19.2-187.
Defendant's sufficiency challenge is likewise without merit.
"Because direct proof of intent is often impossible, it must be
shown by circumstantial evidence." Servis v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.
App. 507, 524, 371 S.E.2d 156, 165 (1988). Circumstances relevant
to proof of an intent to distribute include the quantity of drugs
possessed, the method of its packaging, Monroe v. Commonwealth, 4
Va. App. 154, 156, 355 S.E.2d 336, 337 (1987), and the presence of
paraphernalia common to drug distribution. Servis, 6 Va. App. at
- 3 -
524, 371 S.E.2d at 165. Here, Officer Parker testified that both
the method of packaging and the quantity of marijuana was
inconsistent with personal use. Moreover, the presence of scales
and "baggies" provided additional evidence of defendant's intent to
distribute. See Davis v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 728, 733, 406
S.E.2d 922, 925 (1991). Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 4 -