From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Troy v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
Mar 28, 1995
Record No. 2395-93-4 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 1995)

Opinion

Record No. 2395-93-4

Decided: March 28, 1995

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY, Rosemarie P. Annunziata, Judge

Stephen W. Armstrong for appellant.

Thomas C. Daniel, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judge Fitzpatrick and Senior Judge Duff


MEMORANDUM OPINION

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


Robert Troy (appellant) appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, which approved his jury conviction of distributing cocaine on March 18, 1993. He contends that his conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered because the trial court improperly admitted evidence of other crimes not related to the offense for which he was charged and tried. We disagree and affirm the conviction.

The evidence at trial proved that on March 4, 1993, Investigator Shawn Monaghan, working undercover and accompanied by an informant, went to appellant's Fairfax County home. Appellant admitted Monaghan and the informant to the house. The informant asked for Allyson Friend, appellant's girlfriend, and went to the bedroom to speak to her. After the informant returned, she and Monaghan told appellant that they were looking for some "dope, meaning heroine [sic]" and "rock, meaning crack cocaine." Appellant said that "they" had not used crack since New Year's Eve, but that "they" might have some "shake." The informant went back to the bedroom and emerged with a bag of heroin. Monaghan entered the bedroom, negotiated a price for the heroin and a vial of powder cocaine Friend produced, and paid Friend for the drugs. He and the informant took the drugs and left the house. Appellant was not in the room when Friend sold the drugs to Monaghan.

Monaghan and the informant returned to the house on March 18, 1993. Monaghan asked for Friend because he had purchased drugs from her on the prior occasion. Appellant said that Friend was not there. The investigator asked appellant if he had "anything for sale," and appellant said he had a little "shake" left. From his pocket he produced a vial containing white powder and water. Monaghan purchased the vial, containing powder cocaine, from appellant for ten dollars.

Appellant testified that he was a drug user, but denied selling drugs on March 18. He knew that "shake" was powder cocaine.

Before the trial began, the trial judge ruled that the evidence concerning the March 4 transaction was admissible. The Commonwealth argues that the evidence was admissible to show that appellant knowingly sold cocaine on March 18.

The evidence in dispute tended to prove appellant had possessed drugs and was aware that drugs were being sold at his residence.

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. . . . [E]vidence of other crimes may be admissible if introduced to prove an element of the offense charged, or to prove any number of relevant facts, such as motive, intent, agency, or knowledge. Other crimes evidence may also be admissible when the charged crime is part of a general scheme and proof of that fact is relevant to prove an element of the offense, or to prove or explain how the crime was accomplished.

Wilson v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 213, 220, 429 S.E.2d 229, 233-34, aff'd en banc, 17 Va. App. 248, 436 S.E.2d 193 (1993) (citing Kirkpatrick v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 269, 272, 176 S.E.2d 802, 805 (1970)). In addition, the relevance of the other crimes evidence "must outweigh the prejudice inherent in proving that an accused has committed other crimes." Id. "The responsibility for balancing these competing considerations is largely within the sound discretion of the trial court." Coe v. Commonwealth, 231 Va. 83, 87, 340 S.E.2d 820, 823 (1987).

In Wilson, the defendant was tried for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. The Commonwealth introduced evidence that the defendant sold cocaine several times before, the last purchase having been three weeks to a month before the possession offense occurred. We found the evidence of the prior sales inadmissible and stated that:

prior sales of drugs do not, without more, tend to prove that the accused on another unrelated occasion intended to possess or sell drugs. Evidence of prior drug-related conduct is irrelevant and inadmissible and does not fall within one of the Kirkpatrick exceptions where there has been no showing of an intimate relation or connection between the prior conduct and an element of the crime charged.

Wilson, 16 Va. App. at 221-22, 429 S.E.2d at 234-35.

To establish appellant's guilt, the Commonwealth was not required to prove why Monaghan went to appellant's residence on March 18 or why he initially asked for Friend. However, it was necessary for the prosecution to show that appellant knowingly and intentionally sold cocaine on March 18.

The drug sales occurred at appellant's home within a two week period and were made to the same people. In the context of Monaghan's discussion with appellant about purchasing heroin and cocaine, appellant's statement on March 4 that he had some "shake" gave meaning to appellant's offer to sell "shake" on March 18. These facts connected the two events and established appellant's guilty knowledge on March 18. Thus, the evidence of the March 4 transaction was admissible. See Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (Rec. No. 940874, March 3, 1995).

For the reason stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Troy v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia. Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
Mar 28, 1995
Record No. 2395-93-4 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 1995)
Case details for

Troy v. Commonwealth

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT TROY v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

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

Date published: Mar 28, 1995

Citations

Record No. 2395-93-4 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 1995)