David Coppedge v. Commonwealth of Virginia

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bray, Frank and Senior Judge Hodges
Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia
DAVID COPPEDGE
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0337-99-1 JUDGE WILLIAM H. HODGES
MAY 9, 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH
Von L. Piersall, Jr., Judge
Dianne G. Ringer, Senior Assistant Public
Defender, for appellant.
Shelly R. James, Assistant Attorney General
(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief),
for appellee.
David Coppedge appeals his conviction for possessing heroin
with the intent to distribute it. He argues that the evidence was
insufficient to support the conviction. We disagree, and affirm
the conviction.
Facts
"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.
Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 1, 11, 492 S.E.2d 826, 831 (1997)
(citation omitted).
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
So viewed, the evidence proved that while conducting
surveillance with the aid of binoculars, Officer Frank Chappell
saw Coppedge from a distance of about fifty feet. Coppedge
talked with a man, then reached into his left, front pocket and
removed "some blue glassine wax papers." Chappell, who had
extensive experience investigating narcotics, recognized these
papers as narcotics packaging. Coppedge gave one package to the
man in exchange for money. Chappell radioed a description of
Coppedge to Officer Brent Riddick.
Riddick approached Coppedge, who fled on a bicycle.
Riddick pursued Coppedge. During the pursuit, Riddick saw
Coppedge reach into his left, front pocket, remove "bluish"
colored items, and throw them to the ground. The items appeared
to be in "a bundle" and one "single pack" fell away from the
rest of the bundle.
Riddick apprehended Coppedge two to three minutes later,
and immediately returned to the area where Coppedge had thrown
the items. He recovered the items, which consisted of sixteen
packages bundled together and one package located a few feet
away from the bundle. Laboratory analysis indicated that the
packages contained heroin.
When Riddick saw Coppedge throw the items and when Riddick
retrieved the items, there were no similar items and "no
traffic" in the area. Riddick later recovered $40 in cash from
Coppedge.
- 2 -
Analysis
Initially, Coppedge argues that the evidence did not prove
that the seventeen packages of heroin which Riddick recovered were
the same items Coppedge discarded while fleeing from Riddick.
"Circumstantial evidence is as competent and is entitled to
as much weight as direct evidence, provided it is sufficiently
convincing to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of
guilt." Coleman v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 31, 53, 307 S.E.2d 864,
876 (1983). "[W]here the Commonwealth's evidence as to an element
of an offense is wholly circumstantial, 'all necessary
circumstances proved must be consistent with guilt and
inconsistent with innocence and exclude every reasonable
hypothesis of innocence.'" Moran v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 310,
314, 357 S.E.2d 551, 553 (1987) (citation omitted). However, the
Commonwealth "'is not required to disprove every remote
possibility of innocence, but is, instead, required only to
establish guilt of the accused to the exclusion of a reasonable
doubt.'" Cantrell v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 269, 289, 373
S.E.2d 328, 338 (1988) (citation omitted). "Numerous decisions
have affirmed convictions for possession of narcotic drugs resting
on proof that a defendant was observed dropping or throwing away
an identifiable object which, when subsequently recovered, was
found to contain narcotics." Gordon v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 298,
300, 183 S.E.2d 735, 737 (1971).
- 3 -
Here, although Riddick did not observe the packages from the
moment Coppedge discarded them until the moment Riddick retrieved
them, this break in the chain of evidence is not fatal to the
Commonwealth's case. Cf. id. at 300-01, 183 S.E.2d at 737 (the
chain of evidence was fatally broken because "no witness was
produced who saw [the defendant] dispose of the . . . envelope" he
had been carrying and the envelope found by a detective was
located next to a "public street on which numerous persons were
gathered").
The evidence proved that Coppedge engaged in what appeared to
be a drug sale involving blue items. When approached by Riddick,
Coppedge fled. While fleeing, Coppedge discarded "bluish" items,
a "bundle" landing in one spot and a "single pack" falling away
from the bundle. Minutes later, Riddick returned to the spot
where Coppedge had discarded the items, and recovered sixteen
packages of heroin bundled together and one package a few feet
away from the bundle. The spot where the heroin lay had "no
traffic." This evidence was sufficient to exclude every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence and to prove that Coppedge
possessed the drugs which were found by Riddick.
Coppedge also contends that the evidence failed to prove that
he intended to distribute the seventeen packages of heroin which
Riddick recovered. We disagree.
"'Intent is a state of mind that may be proved by an
accused's acts or by his statements and that may be shown by
- 4 -
circumstantial evidence.'" Wilson v. Commonwealth, 249 Va. 95,
101, 452 S.E.2d 669, 673-74 (1995) (citations omitted).
Chappell saw Coppedge reach into his left, front pocket,
remove a blue item, and exchange it for money. While fleeing from
the police, Coppedge again reached into his left, front pocket,
removed blue items, and threw them to the ground. These blue
items contained heroin. When arrested, Coppedge possessed $40 in
cash. From this evidence of Coppedge's acts, the fact finder
could reasonably conclude that Coppedge had engaged in a heroin
transaction and possessed the remaining seventeen packages of
heroin with the intent to distribute them.
Affirmed.
- 5 -