Rich v. State
| Decision Date | 01 September 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 1287,1287 |
| Citation | 611 A.2d 1034,93 Md.App. 142 |
| Parties | James Wesley RICH and Dana Carlton Rich v. STATE of Maryland. , |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
David P. Kennedy, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen. and Stuart O. Simms, State's Atty. for Baltimore City, on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.
Argued before GARRITY, WENNER and HARRELL, JJ.
Appellants, James Rich and Dana Rich, along with their brother, Harlan Rich, were tried jointly on drug charges in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, (Mitchell J.). During the jury trial and after mid-trial negotiations with the prosecutor, appellants waived their right to a jury trial and proceeded on an agreed statement of facts.
Dana Rich was found guilty of use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug crime, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and possession of heroin with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to five years without parole James Rich was found guilty of use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. He was sentenced to five years without parole for the firearms violation and a concurrent five years on the conspiracy conviction.
for the firearms violation and to five consecutive years on each of the other convictions.
Harlan Rich, who elected not to appeal, pleaded guilty to charges of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and possession of a handgun. He received two concurrent ten year sentences, all but five years suspended, on the possession with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiracy to distribute cocaine charges and a three year concurrent sentence on the handgun violation.
We are asked to review whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Dana Rich of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and to convict James Rich of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. We are further asked to review whether the circumstantial evidence, including the proximity of firearms to the contraband drugs, packaging paraphernalia, and large sums of cash in the rooms adjacent to where appellants were found, was sufficient to show use of the firearms in a drug trafficking crime as opposed to their mere possession for different uses.
On November 3, 1989, Baltimore City police executed a valid search warrant on appellants' parents' three story, four bedroom house, at 716 N. Woodington Road. At the time of the raid, appellants were present, along with five other adults and nine children ranging in age from one to twelve. The first officer in the house found James Rich next to a pit bull in the second floor hallway outside the left rear bedroom and Dana Rich at the doorway of the second floor left front bedroom.
The left front bedroom contained a bed, dresser and closet. Under the mattress in that room police found a 0.22 caliber rifle, two BB rifles, a 0.32 caliber semi-automatic pistol, and an UZI semi-automatic nine millimeter assault weapon. In the pocket of a jacket in the closet of that bedroom was a plastic bag containing 49 ziplock bags of cocaine, 36 glassine bags of heroin bound in a rubber band, a ziplock bag with five small bags of cocaine, and $383. A triple beam scale was on the floor of the closet under some clothing. On top of the dresser there was a box that contained three ziplock bags of white powdery substance, which was later found not to be a controlled substance but which a police expert testified could be used as a "cutting" agent for cocaine or heroin. Also on top of the dresser, empty glassine bags and ziplock bags were found along with a hand held scale. In a dresser drawer there were four empty holsters and two boxes of assorted ammunition. At the foot of the bed was a briefcase that contained empty ziplock bags, and the personal mail and papers of Dana Rich. The searching officer detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the briefcase. A TDK cassette case on top of a radiator behind the bedboard contained empty glassine bags and ziplock bags, a small spoon, and thirty five ziplock bags with residue in them. A saber sword was found behind the dresser.
The left rear bedroom had a bed, tall chest of drawers, a dresser, and a closet. Between the mattress and the box spring was a fully loaded 0.38 caliber revolver. On the floor of the closet under a heap of male clothing was a sawed-off shotgun and a sawed-off rifle. In a coat pocket in the closet were three marijuana cigarettes and $34. On the floor next to the bed was a small spoon with residue and burn marks. In the top chest drawer were two bags of marijuana and a plastic bag containing white powder and two smaller ziplock bags containing white powder. The powder was later determined not to be a controlled substance but could be used for "cutting" cocaine according to testimony from a police expert. The top dresser drawer James Rich proffered that he had lived at that address for at least twenty years, and Dana Rich proffered that he lived at the house at the time of the raid. The doors to both bedrooms where drugs were found were either unlocked or wide open.
had a large bag of marijuana, a second drawer had $1075, and a third drawer had $33 and ziplock bags. A variety of ammunition and a speed loading device for a 0.38 caliber revolver and UZI ammunition were found in the dresser, chest of drawers, and in the closet. In the dresser drawers, police also found personal mail and papers of James and Dana Rich and ammunition for the weapons that were in the room.
In essence, we are asked to review whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. In a case tried before the court without a jury, the test as to whether the trial court was clearly erroneous in reaching a guilty verdict is whether the admissible evidence adduced at trial either showed directly, or circumstantially, or supported a rational inference of, the facts to be proved from which he, or she, as the trier of fact, could fairly be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt of the offense charged. Folk v. State, 11 Md.App. 508, 520, 275 A.2d 184 (1971). A conviction upon a single strand of circumstantial evidence alone is not to be sustained unless the circumstances are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Eiland v. State, 92 Md.App. 56, 607 A.2d 42 (1992); West v. State, 312 Md. 197, 211-212, 539 A.2d 231 (1988). Here, however, we shall examine several facets of circumstantial evidence to support sufficiency.
To convict for possession with intent to distribute, the State must prove possession of the controlled dangerous substance in sufficient quantities to indicate, under all of the circumstances, an intent to distribute. Md.Code Ann. art. 27, § 286(a). Possession can be constructive or joint. Folk, supra 11 Md.App. at 511, 275 A.2d 184. Factors to be considered in determining possession are: 1) proximity between the defendant and the contraband; 2) whether the drugs or contraband were within the plain view or otherwise within the knowledge of the defendant; 3) ownership or some possessory right in the premises; and 4) the presence of circumstances from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that the defendant was participating with others in the mutual enjoyment of the contraband. Folk, supra, at 514, 275 A.2d 184. We will first analyze the circumstantial evidence against Dana Rich for possession of cocaine and heroin with intent to distribute.
Dana Rich was found at the time of the raid in the doorway of the room in which large quantities of cocaine and heroin packaged for multiple distribution were found along with an array of protective weaponry including an UZI semi-automatic assault weapon. In addition, large quantities of cocaine yet to be packaged for distribution were within a few feet of the doorway in which he stood. Thus, he and the contraband were proximate as to location.
Although the drugs were not in plain view, the packaging paraphernalia, including plastic bags, a hand-held scale, and white powdery substance in three bags on top of the dresser available for "cutting" cocaine or heroin, were all in plain view in his room. A reasonable inference can be drawn that it was his room based on the location of his personal mail and papers found in the briefcase at the foot of the bed along with his position in the bedroom doorway at the time of the raid. Once the reasonable inference is drawn that this was Dana Rich's bedroom, it becomes evident that Dana Rich had knowledge of the drugs, drug packaging paraphernalia, including hand held and triple beam scales, and large number of firearms and ammunition found in his room. Further, appellant proffered that he lived at the raided house. In sum, we believe that the circumstantial evidence fairly supported a reasonable inference that Dana Rich had knowledge of the cocaine and heroin found in the coat pocket in the closet, and of the guns and drug packaging paraphernalia found in his room. Similarly, these circumstantial facts support his proprietary or possessory interest in the room; in the clothing, including the jacket in his room; and in the house where he resided.
The same type of circumstantial evidence supports a fair inference that Dana Rich utilized the drugs, the white powdery "cutting" agent, the glassine bags for heroin, the ziplock bags for cocaine, the large quantities of cocaine and heroin, plastic baggies, the spoon, and hand held and triple beam scales, all found in his room. Thus, he participated in the enjoyment of the contraband. Appellant did not contest that the quantity of drugs found was sufficient to demonstrate intent to distribute.
Conspiracy is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. State
...possession of a firearm, unrelated in any way to a drug trafficking offense. Nonetheless, specifically, citing Rich v. State, 93 Md.App. 142, 154-61, 611 A.2d 1034, 1039-43 (1992), the purpose of the Drug Kingpin Act, and the cases construing the federal statute, which is similar to section......
-
Whiting v. State
...to possess firearms than one not so involved. See Banks v. State, 84 Md.App. 582, 591, 581 A.2d 439 (1990); see also Rich v. State, 93 Md.App. 142, 159, 611 A.2d 1034 (1992), vacated on other grounds, 331 Md. 195, 627 A.2d 537 (1993). In this case, there was more evidence than an isolated g......
-
Kostelec v. State
...inference could be drawn that the defendant was participating with others in the mutual enjoyment of the contraband Rich v. State, 93 Md.App. 142, 150, 611 A.2d 1034 (1992), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 331 Md. 195, 627 A.2d 537 (1993) (citing Folk v. State, 11 Md.App. 508, 514, 2......
-
Archie v. State
...dominion or control over [the substance]."17 Possession need not be immediate and direct but may be constructive. Rich v. State, 93 Md.App. 142, 150, 611 A.2d 1034 (1992), rev'd on other grounds,331 Md. 195, 627 A.2d 537 (1993). Knowledge of the presence and illicit nature of narcotics may ......