Keith Eric Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Willis, Annunziata and Overton
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
KEITH ERIC WILLIAMS
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 2203-97-2 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
JULY 7, 1998
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HANOVER COUNTY
Richard H. C. Taylor, Judge
Kelly A. Halligan (Halligan & Halligan, P.C.,
on brief), for appellant.
Thomas D. Bagwell, Senior Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
On appeal from his conviction for conspiracy to distribute
marijuana, Keith Eric Williams contends that the Commonwealth
failed to prove venue and therefore the trial court erred in
denying his motion to strike the evidence. We affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
I.
On appeal, we review questions concerning venue to determine
"whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth, is sufficient to support the [trial court's]
venue findings." Cheng v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 26, 36, 393
S.E.2d 599, 604 (1990).
On January 21, 1996, Richmond Police Officer Richard J.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Greeneich received a page from Jodie Williams (Jodie), Williams'
wife. At that time, Greeneich was working undercover and was
employed as a bouncer at the Rack and Roll Cafe in downtown
Richmond. When Greeneich telephoned Jodie at her home in Hanover
County, she asked him whether he wanted some marijuana.
Greeneich told her that he was going out of town and would call
her upon his return.
On January 26, 1996, Greeneich telephoned Jodie at her
Hanover County residence. Williams answered the phone. He asked
whether he should bring Greeneich some marijuana that night.
Greeneich said that he had limited funds, but that Williams
should bring the marijuana. Greeneich did not see Williams that
night.
The following day, Greeneich telephoned Jodie's Hanover
County residence and spoke with both Williams and Jodie.
Williams apologized for not appearing the previous night, and
said that he would bring marijuana to the Rack and Roll Cafe that
night.
That evening, Jodie paged Greeneich at the Rack and Roll
Cafe. When Greeneich returned her call, Jodie expressed concern
as to whether Williams had arrived, because he had the "stuff" in
her vehicle. Greeneich told her that he would tell Williams to
call her at her residence. When Williams arrived, he informed
Greeneich that he had brought marijuana and that the price was
$180 per ounce. Greeneich replied that Jodie had given him a
- 2 -
better price. Greeneich telephoned Jodie at her Hanover County
home, and they agreed to a price of $150 per ounce. Greeneich
then informed Williams of the agreement, and advised him to call
Jodie if he had any questions. Shortly thereafter, Williams sold
the marijuana to Greeneich for $150 per ounce.
II.
Except as otherwise provided by law, the
prosecution of a criminal case shall be had
in the county or city in which the offense
was committed.
Code § 19.2-244.
[T]he burden is upon the Commonwealth to
prove venue by evidence which is either
direct or circumstantial. Such evidence must
furnish the foundation for a "strong
presumption" that the offense was committed
within the jurisdiction of the court.
Pollard v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 723, 725, 261 S.E.2d 328, 330
(1980) (citing Keesee v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 174, 175, 217
S.E.2d 808, 809-10 (1975)).
Sufficient evidence supports the trial court's determination
that venue lay in Hanover County. In conspiracy cases, venue is
proper where the conspiracy is made or where an act is committed
in furtherance of the conspiracy. Henry v. Commonwealth, 2 Va.
App. 194, 199, 342 S.E.2d 655, 657-58 (1986). The evidence
supports a finding that Williams and Jodie conspired to
distribute marijuana. Thus, the only question is whether the
conspiracy or some act in furtherance thereof occurred in Hanover
County.
- 3 -
Greeneich acknowledged that he did not know whether Jodie
had call forwarding, and admitted that he did not know whether
Williams was actually in Hanover County when he spoke to him on
the telephone on January 27, 1996. However, the Commonwealth was
required to raise only a "strong presumption" that venue lay in
Hanover County.
The evidence supports the inference that Williams and Jodie
conspired to distribute marijuana while they were in Hanover
County and that they acted in Hanover County in furtherance of
that conspiracy. See Henry, 2 Va. App. at 198, 342 S.E.2d at 657("Each member of a conspiracy is responsible for the acts of
others in furtherance of the conspiracy, and all conspirators,
even those without knowledge of the particular act, may be tried
where any of those acts are performed."); Zuniga v. Commonwealth,
7 Va. App. 523, 532, 375 S.E.2d 381, 387 (1988) (finding venue
for conspiracy where co-conspirator telephoned defendant). The
evidence sufficiently proves that Jodie resided in Hanover
County, that Greeneich telephoned Jodie at her house there on
several occasions, and that Greeneich spoke with both Williams
and Jodie, who were then in Hanover County, concerning the
purchase of marijuana.
Accordingly, venue was proper in Hanover County. The
judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 4 -