Reed v. Com.
| Citation | 194 S.E.2d 746,213 Va. 593 |
| Parties | Roger REED v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
| Decision Date | 05 March 1973 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
Wade H. Ballard, III, Peterstown, W. Va. (Max Jenkins, Radford, Ballard & Ballard, Peterstown, W. Va., Goldsmith & Jenkins, Radford, on brief), for plaintiff in error.
Gilbert W. Haith, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.
Before SNEAD, C.J., and I'ANSON, CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN and POFF, JJ.
Roger Reed, defendant, was found guilty by a jury on an indictment which charged that he did unlawfully and feloniously conspire with Charles Francis Bowles to distribute a controlled drug (LSD) in violation of Code § 54--524.104. His punishment was fixed at one year's confinement in the penitentiary and the payment of a fine of $1,000. For reasons appearing satisfactory to the court, the execution of the penitentiary sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation. The critical question presented is whether the evidence was sufficient to convict him of the offense.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the record discloses that defendant was involved in a drug transaction on December 21, 1970. On that day, R. C. Sharp, Jr., an undercover member of the Virginia State Police, and Ronald Powell, a police informant, went to Giles County and visited the defendant, whom Sharp had previously met through Powell. There, Sharp asked defendant if 'he knew where we could score (buy) some acid (LSD) in Blacksburg.' Defendant replied, that 'if he could find the person he usually scored from, he knew we could score.'
At approximately 6:00 p.m., Sharp, the defendant, Powell and Bunny Christian, a friend of the defendant, departed from the defendant's home and proceeded to Blacksburg in Sharp's automobile to locate defendant's drug source. After arriving in Blacksburg, Sharp was directed by the defendant to a house on Roanoke Avenue, where 'Charlie Tuna' (later determined to be Charles Francis Bowles) lived. The defendant knocked on the door, but no one answered. They then proceeded to an apartment house about one-half mile distant. The defendant found no one present at the apartment. According to Sharp, when the defendant returned to the car, he said 'that he was looking for two girls who lived in the apartment, and that they could tell him where to find some acid if there was any in town.'
At the defendant's direction, they drove next to the Spudnut Donut Shop in Blacksburg. Sharp and the defendant entered the shop, where the defendant saw...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Doty
...313 S.C. 124, 133–134, 437 S.E.2d 75 (1993) ; State v. Horne, 324 S.C. 372, 381, 478 S.E.2d 289 (Ct.App.1996) ; Reed v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 593, 594, 194 S.E.2d 746 (1973) ; Zuniga v. Commonwealth, 7 Va.App. 523, 528–529, 375 S.E.2d 381 (1988) ; State v. Smith, 189 Wis.2d 496, 502–504, 52......
-
Jones v. Com., 0789-88-4
...(a buy/sell agreement between individuals does not constitute a conspiracy between them to distribute); Reed v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 593, 594-95, 194 S.E.2d 746, 747 (1973) (facilitation of a transaction by an individual does not, standing alone, constitute conspiracy). We hold that circum......
-
Corsaro v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1269-05-2 (Va. App. 11/6/2007)
..."Commonwealth ha[s] to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an agreement existed . . . to distribute drugs." Reed v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 593, 594, 194 S.E.2d 746, 747 (1973). The existence of an agreement to distribute a controlled substance is the essence of the offense. See Fortune v. C......
-
Cahoon v. Commonwealth
...doubt that an agreement existed." Floyd v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 575, 580, 249 S.E.2d 171, 174 (1978) (citing Reed v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 593, 194 S.E.2d 746 (1973)). Evaluating the evidence in an effort to find a necessary agreement between appellant and Roy, even in the light most favor......