From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burrell v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Argued at Richmond, Virginia
Jun 7, 1994
Record No. 0548-93-2 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 7, 1994)

Opinion

Record No. 0548-93-2

Decided: June 7, 1994

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge

Affirmed.

A. Russell Watson (Hairfield, Morton, Allen Rockwell, on brief), for appellant.

Marla Lynn Graff, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judge Fitzpatrick and Retired Judge Hodges


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.


The trial court's decision is affirmed for the following reasons:

"To prove constructive possession, 'the Commonwealth must point to evidence of acts, statements, or conduct of the accused or other facts or circumstances which tend to show that the defendant was aware of both the presence and character of the substance and that it was subject to [his] dominion and control.' " Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 751, 753-54, 433 S.E.2d 27, 28 (1993).

The evidence supports the fact finder's belief beyond a reasonable doubt that Burrell knowingly possessed the drugs. Burrell and his girlfriend, Gail Winston, engaged in a physical altercation in Winston's apartment. After Burrell departed, Winston found a cigarette package, which she examined and "knew contained drugs," located at the exact location of the earlier fight. Winston testified that the package was not on the floor before the fight and that only she, Burrell, and her children were in the apartment from the time Burrell was present to the time the police arrived and confiscated the package. Winston found the drugs when she went to the bathroom to wash up after the fight. The evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis that a person other than Burrell could have dropped the packet.

The state lab results indicated that the package contained cocaine. Although Burrell denied knowledge of the cocaine, he conceded that Winston had neither seen nor used cocaine, but that he was familiar with the appearance of cocaine. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence was sufficient to establish that the drugs belonged to Burrell.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Burrell v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Argued at Richmond, Virginia
Jun 7, 1994
Record No. 0548-93-2 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 7, 1994)
Case details for

Burrell v. Commonwealth

Case Details

Full title:JAMES ANDREW BURRELL v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia. Argued at Richmond, Virginia

Date published: Jun 7, 1994

Citations

Record No. 0548-93-2 (Va. Ct. App. Jun. 7, 1994)