Opinion
Record No. 1916-93-4
Decided: January 31, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, William L. Winston, Judge
Sylvia Sevilla Hicks for appellant.
Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Willis, Bray and Fitzpatrick
Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
Maximo Rosario (appellant) was convicted in a jury trial of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of Code Sec. 18.2-248(A). On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in allowing testimony concerning a prior drug dealing relationship between appellant and his co-defendant. We disagree and affirm the conviction.
Jose Ramon, an informant, set up a drug buy with his supplier, Ricardo Villatoro (Villatoro), at a restaurant in Arlington. Villatoro drove into the restaurant parking lot, exited, re-entered, and parked. Appellant was in the passenger seat of the automobile. Upon entering the restaurant, both men were arrested, and Villatoro consented to a search of his car. Cocaine was recovered under the passenger seat where appellant had been sitting.
At trial, Villatoro testified over objection that: (1) appellant was his supplier; (2) he contacted appellant for this cocaine as he had done in the past; and (3) in previous dealings with appellant, he was "paid" with either drugs for own use or money. Appellant argues that the prejudicial effect of this evidence of other crimes outweighed its probative value. We disagree.
"Evidence that shows or tends to show that the accused committed or was guilty of other crimes is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the accused committed or likely committed the particular crime charged." Wilson v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 213, 220, 429 S.E.2d 229, 233, aff'd en banc, 17 Va. App. 248, 436 S.E.2d 193 (1993). "[N]umerous exceptions allow evidence of prior misconduct '[w]henever the legitimate probative value outweighs the incidental prejudice to the accused.' " Wilkins v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. ___, ___, 443 S.E.2d 440, 443 (1994) (en banc). These exceptions include intent and knowledge. Id. at ___, 443 S.E.2d at 443. "The other crimes evidence, in order to be admissible [under an exception], must be sufficiently relevant or 'so intimately connected and blended with the main facts . . . that they cannot be departed from with propriety.' " Wilson, 16 Va. App. at 221, 429 S.E.2d at 234.
The Commonwealth was required to prove that appellant jointly possessed the cocaine with Villatoro and intended to distribute it to Ramon. Appellant denied any knowledge of the cocaine in the car and testified that he was not involved in this drug sale. Villatoro's testimony established that appellant and Villatoro were engaged in an ongoing supplier-buyer relationship, in which appellant supplied Villatoro with drugs for resale.
This evidence of appellant's relationship and prior dealings with Villatoro was clearly probative of his knowledge of the drugs in the car and his specific intent to distribute them.
We find no error in the trial court's determination that the probative value of Villatoro's testimony outweighed any incidental prejudice to appellant. Additionally, the trial judge gave an adequate cautionary instruction that limited consideration of this evidence only to establishing appellant's relationship with Villatoro, his knowledge of the drug, and his intent to distribute it.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Affirmed.