Haskins v. Com., Record No. 1423-98-1.

• Docket Nº: Record No. 1423-98-1.
• Citation: 521 S.E.2d 777, 31 Va. App. 145
• Case Date: December 07, 1999
• Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia

521 S.E.2d 777
31 Va. App. 145

Marvin Walter HASKINS
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia

Record No. 1423-98-1.

Court of Appeals of Virginia, Chesapeake.

December 7, 1999.

521 S.E.2d 778

Gail Starling Marshall, Rapidan (Timothy S. Fisher; Overman & Cowardin, P.L.C., Newport News, on brief), for appellant

Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: FITZPATRICK, C.J., and WILLIS and ANNUNZIATA, JJ.

FITZPATRICK, Chief Judge.

Marvin Walter Haskins (appellant) was convicted in a bench trial of possession of cocaine, in violation of Code § 18.2-250. On appeal, he argues the evidence was insufficient to prove that he constructively possessed the cocaine. For the following reasons, we reverse.

I.

Under familiar principles of appellate review, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party below, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Juares v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 154, 156, 493 S.E.2d 677, 678 (1997). So viewed, the evidence established that on January 9, 1998, three uniformed police officers executed a search warrant at the TDY Inn, Room 111, in the City of Newport News. Detective Richard Dawes (Dawes) made a "knock and announce" entry and observed numerous people in the front of the room and in the back bedroom. As Dawes walked down the hallway, he observed appellant leaving the bathroom. Dawes testified that appellant "wasn't standing in the hallway, he wasn't standing at the doorway, he was coming out of the bathroom into the hallway."

Dawes and his fellow officers directed the occupants of the room, including appellant, to be seated in the living room. Dawes described the search of the hotel room and bathroom as follows:

After we got the people in the back bedroom under control and . . . [the search] warrant was served and everything, I went back into the bathroom where I had observed [appellant] coming out of. The door was open at this time. I pushed the door closed and looked directly behind the door, which would be between the door and the wall which was just right at the hallway, I observed a dollar bill was crumpled up.

The dollar bill contained several rocks of what Dawes "believed to be crack cocaine."

521 S.E.2d 779

Nobody entered or left the bathroom between the time Dawes saw appellant coming out and Dawes' discovery of the dollar bill behind the door

Detective Randy Ronneberg (Ronneberg) acted as the evidence collection officer during the search of the hotel room. Ronneberg collected only the dollar bill containing the suspected narcotics from the bathroom. After gathering the evidence but before leaving the hotel room, Ronneberg told appellant that suspected cocaine had been seized from the bathroom.

While appellant was seated in the front of the hotel room, Detective Carl Cespedes (Cespedes) overheard appellant talking to another person seated to his left. Appellant stated, "they're trying to pin that stuff on me in the bathroom, but it's only baking soda." At the time Cespedes overheard appellant's statement, the detective was unaware of what had been found in the bathroom. Laboratory testing confirmed that the rocks found in the dollar bill were .57 grams of cocaine. Appellant presented no evidence. The trial court overruled appellant's motion to strike the evidence and found appellant guilty as charged.

II.

When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, we determine whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the Commonwealth and the reasonable inferences fairly deducible from that evidence support each and every element of the charged offense, See Moore v. Commonwealth, 254 Va. 184, 186, 491...