In determining whether the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal conviction, the appellate court views the facts "in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the prevailing party at trial, and considers all inferences fairly deducible from that evidence." Powell v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 20, 26 (2015) (quoting Allen v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 68, 72 (2014)).
"The Board of Pharmacy is charged with administering Article 5 of the Drug Control Act and adding or removing substances from the various schedules." Powell v. Commonwealth , 289 Va. 20, 29, 766 S.E.2d 736 (2015). The "nature" of the substance is an element of an offense under Code § 18.2-248.
When an appellate court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, it "[ ]views th[at] evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the prevailing party at trial, and considers all inferences fairly deducible from that evidence." Powell v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 20, 26, 766 S.E.2d 736 (2015) (quoting Allen v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 68, 72, 752 S.E.2d 856 (2014) ). The appellate court presumes that the judgment of the trial court is correct and reverses that judgment only if it is "plainly wrong or without evidence to support it."
Therefore, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to permit the trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Commonwealth established that the substance, by appearance and packaging, would likely be mistaken for MDMA, otherwise known as molly. See Powell v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 20, 30, 766 S.E.2d 736, 741 (2015) (holding the evidence was sufficient for the factfinder to find that the substance would likely be mistaken for crack cocaine based on the detective's testimony that the substance looked like crack cocaine to the "naked eye"). Next in challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Riddle argues that his statement that "he was not showboating [the salts] around, but if someone else knew where to get it I would have sold it to them," was purely a hypothetical response and cannot form the basis for a finding of guilty. "The credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded the evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has the opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented."
This Court reviews the evidence "in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the prevailing party at trial, and considers all inferences fairly deducible from that evidence." Powell v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 20, 26, 766 S.E.2d 736, 738 (2015) (quoting Allen v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 68, 72, 752 S.E.2d 856, 858-59 (2014)). "[T]he relevant question is whether 'any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'"
This Court reviews the evidence "in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the prevailing party at trial, and considers all inferences fairly deducible from that evidence." Powell v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 20, 26, 766 S.E.2d 736, 739 (2015) (quoting Allen v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 68, 72, 752 S.E.2d 856, 858-59 (2014)). "[T]he relevant question is whether 'any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'"
Additionally, “[t]o the extent we must interpret a statute, that is a question of law that we review de novo.” Powell v. Commonwealth , 289 Va. 20, 26, 766 S.E.2d 736, 739 (2015).B. Commission's Findings of Fact
Examining “the record through this evidentiary prism requires [the Court] to ‘discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth.’ ” Cooper v. Commonwealth, 54 Va.App. 558, 562, 680 S.E.2d 361, 363 (2009) (quoting Parks v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 492, 498, 270 S.E.2d 755, 759 (1980)). To the extent that our sufficiency analysis requires us to interpret a statute, this is a question of law that we review de novo. Powell v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 20, 26, 766 S.E.2d 736, 739 (2015). Where factual findings are at issue in the context of an appeal, great deference is given to the trier of fact, in this case the trial court.