Opinion
No. 464, 2002
Submitted: February 4, 2003
Decided: February 13, 2003
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID. No. 0005003075
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
ORDER
This 13th day of February 2003, it appears to the Court that:
(1) In June 2002, a Superior Court jury convicted appellant Keith Perkins of Possession With Intent to Deliver a Narcotic Schedule II Controlled Substance (cocaine) and Possession of a Controlled Substance (cocaine) Within 1000 Feet of a School Zone. In this appeal, Perkins claims that the trial court erred by denying his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the conclusion of the State's case. We conclude that the trial court properly denied Perkins' motion and that his conviction should be affirmed.
Id. at § 4767(a)(1).
(2) At trial, Perkins moved to dismiss both charges, arguing that the State's evidence was insufficient to establish: (i) he possessed the drugs found by the officers and (ii) he had the intent to deliver the drugs. We review the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo to determine whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. After doing so here, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence for the jury to consider the charges.
Seward v. State, 723 A.2d 365, 369 (Del. 1999).
(3) The evidence introduced at trial showed that an officer observed Perkins engage in two apparent drug transactions in an area notorious for drug activities. Perkins called out to one vehicle stating, "I'm the one you are looking for" and later stepped out on the street waiving to a second vehicle. The officer observed Perkins exchanging something for cash in both instances and the officer specifically observed Perkins remove a plastic sandwich bag from his pocket during the second transaction. A sandwich bag similar to that observed containing seventeen ten-dollar bags of crack cocaine was found in close proximity to the chair in which Perkins had been sitting and along the path he walked when the officers approached. In conjunction with this evidence, additional inferences of criminal conduct can be drawn from his immediate attempt to depart the area when the officers approached. A rational trier of fact could easily infer that the defendant dropped the bag of drugs on the ground as the uniformed officers came into view and therefore, that Perkins possessed the cocaine. That same trier of fact could conclude based on the officers' observations that Perkins was selling drugs to various motorists. Accordingly, the trial judge properly denied Perkins's motion.
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.