Gillis v. Com.
| Decision Date | 14 October 1974 |
| Citation | 215 Va. 298,208 S.E.2d 768 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | James Russell GILLIS v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
Barry W. Norwood, Richmond (Norwood & Norwood, Richmond, on brief), for plaintiff in error.
Gilbert W. Haith, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.
Before I'ANSON, C.J., and CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN and POFF, JJ.
James Russell Gillis, the defendant, waived a jury trial and was convicted by the trial court of possession of marijuana as proscribed by Code § 54--524.101:2. His punishment was fixed at a fine of $250 and a jail sentence of 12 months, with the jail sentence suspended.
We must determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support that conviction. Upon appeal, we must view the evidence, and all reasonable inference therefrom, in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed in the court below, that party, in this instance, being the Commonwealth.
The warrant upon which the defendant was convicted was issued after the search of an apartment in the Fan District of Richmond on June 20, 1973, by two members of the Richmond Police Department. Defendant has never challenged the validity of the search warrant or the manner in which the search was conducted.
The apartment, rented jointly by defendant and Gary Cook (Cook), had been under intermittent police survillance for drug activity for approximately two weeks prior to the search. Detectives John J. Cox (Cox) and George C. Robinson (Robinson) arrived at the apartment at approximately 10:50 p.m. on June 20 to execute a search warrant which had been issued earlier that night. Cox approached the front door and Robinson went to the rear of the apartment. While waiting for Cox to knock and announce his presence, Robinson observed the interior through double glass doors at the rear of the apartment. He saw the defendant in the kitchen adjacent to the rear of the apartment and observed Cook sitting on a sofa in the living-dining area near the front door.
After Cox knocked, Cook opened the front door. Cox identified himself as a police officer and advised Cook that he was intermittent police surveillance for drug activity entered the apartment, Cox observed the defendant walking toward him from the kitchen. In the living-dining area Cox saw and seized some 'burnt plant material' which appeared to be marijuana. This material was in an ash tray beside a chair. The officers also seized a large pipe, described as a 'hash pipe' by one of the Commonwealth's witnesses, containing 'burnt material' which was sitting in open view on the living room table. 1
A plastic bag in one of the metal cannisters on the pipe contained a small amount of marijuana. Laboratory tests of the material seized from the ash tray and scrapings from the wooden bowl of the pipe confirmed them to be marijuana.
The evidence shows that the defendant and Cook jointly rented and occupied the apartment, and that only they had keys to the apartment. While Cook and the defendant occupied separate bedrooms, they jointly shared the living-dining area and the kitchen of the apartment.
The defendant argues that the evidence in the case at bar is insufficient to prove the elements which the Commonwealth must establish to convict him of possession of a controlled substance. In support of this argument he points to testimony presented on his behalf at trial.
Defendant testified that the marijuana did not belong to him. He further testified that the pipe was the property of his cotenant, Cook, who had purchased it several months before from a man whose name was unknown to defendant.
Gillis' testimony showed that he had been staying at the home of a friend for about one week prior to his arrest and had only been at the apartment on two occasions, i.e., for a 'brief' time on June 18 and after 10:00 p.m. on the night of June 20. Upon cross-examination, Gillis revealed, without objection, that he was already on probation for another conviction of possessing marijuana. The defendant acknowledged that the pipe was in open view on the living room table.
Testimony of two other defense witnesses tended to corroborate that Gillis, during the week prior to his arrest, had been at the apartment on only one other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ervin v. Commonwealth of Va..
...v. Commonwealth, 15 Va.App. 432, 435, 425 S.E.2d 81, 83–84 (1992) (emphasis added) (citing Gillis v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 298, 301–02, 208 S.E.2d 768, 770–71 (1974)). Actual or constructive possession alone is not sufficient to prove that the drug possession was knowing and intentional. Yo......
-
Josephs v. Com.
...The duration of the possession is immaterial and need not always be shown to have been actual possession." Gillis v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 298, 301-02, 208 S.E.2d 768, 771 (1974). It is not necessary to show actual possession of the controlled substance. Constructive possession of a control......
-
ERVIN v. Commonwealth Of Va.
...of such ownership or occupancy. Burchette, 15 Va. App. at 435, 425 S.E.2d at 83-84 (emphasis added) (citing Gillis v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 298, 301-02, 208 S.E.2d 768, 770-71 (1974)). Actual or constructive possession alone is not sufficient to prove that the drug possession was knowing an......
-
Castaneda v. Com., 1404-86-2
...It may be shared with another. Archer v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 416, 418, 303 S.E.2d 863, 864 (1983); Gillis v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 298, 301-02, 208 S.E.2d 768, 771 (1974). The drugs were in the back seat of the car. When the police officer stopped the car, Castaneda quickly directed the o......