Schindel v. Com., 780789
| Citation | 219 Va. 814,252 S.E.2d 302 |
| Decision Date | 02 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 780789,780789 |
| Parties | Winfield SCHINDEL v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Daniel J. Travostino, Fairfax (Doherty, Sheridan, Grimaldi & Shevlin, Fairfax, on brief), for appellant.
Richard B. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Marshall Coleman, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.
Before I'ANSON, C. J., and CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN, POFF and COMPTON, JJ.
Winfield Schindel was convicted by a jury of possession of dilaudid, a Schedule II controlled substance, with intent to distribute and, by final judgment entered March 17, 1978, was sentenced to serve five years in the penitentiary. We granted a writ of error to consider defendant's claim that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting hearsay testimony and in refusing defendant's instruction on accommodation distribution.
We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. James Weston, arrested on a narcotics charge, agreed to cooperate with the police in their investigation of drug traffic in Fairfax County. Weston approached defendant in a corridor of the courthouse and inquired if he knew where he could buy heroin or dilaudid. Defendant told him he could get a prescription from a doctor, Dr. Salama, who was present in the courthouse, but "it would cost him a hundred dollars." Defendant asked Weston to "loan" him $100 to pay Salama for the prescription and a bill he owed for earlier treatments. Weston refused but, hoping to "help" his own case, left the courthouse and contacted Detective Guy Morgan.
Morgan gave Weston six marked twenty-dollar bills, five of which Weston handed to defendant. Defendant passed the five bills to Salama who wrote a prescription for dilaudid in defendant's name. Defendant and Weston drove to a nearby pharmacy, followed in another car by Morgan. The cost of filling the prescription was $3.45. Weston understood that he was to get several pills with a "street value of approximately a hundred dollars." Sitting in the car with Weston, defendant poured the pills into his hand and showed them to Weston. Weston testified that " At this point, the detective reached into the car and, as defendant made a motion toward his mouth, grabbed his hand and told him not to attempt to swallow the pills.
On cross-examination, Weston acknowledged the conversation about a loan and agreed that defendant had never expressly "told" him he would get some of the drugs. He testified, however, that "it was an understanding . . . he would get some, I would get some; I thought I was going to get the major portion." Throughout his testimony, defendant maintained that the transaction was nothing but a loan; that the prescription was intended solely to treat his own health problem; and that Weston "wasn't to get any of those pills."
Defendant's hearsay objection was addressed to the following portion of Detective Morgan's testimony:
A. The conversation between Weston and I was about Weston was to receive or to give one hundred dollars to an individual known as Windy Schindel. For this one hundred dollars Schindel was to receive a prescription from a Dr. Salama and the prescription was for thirty dilaudid tablets.
Defendant argues that Morgan was reciting what Weston had told him, and that in doing so, he "was trying to make out a prima facie case of intent to distribute, where Weston had failed to do so". Defendant overlooks the plain import of the following extract from Weston's testimony:
A. I approached Mr. Schindel in a friendly manner and I asked him if he knew where I could purchase any particular type drugs, heroin or dilaudid.
Q. What, if anything, did Mr. Schindel say in response to that?
A. He said yes, he knew where he could get some dilaudid. And he stated that there was a doctor in the Courthouse that he could give a certain amount of money to and get a prescription.
Q. Was there any mention of money at that time?
A. There was mention of Mr. Schindel told me he'd need a hundred dollars to get the prescription from the doctor in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mu'Min v. Com.
...was rendered harmless by the defendant's own account of the same facts disclosed by that order. See Schindel v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 814, 817, 252 S.E.2d 302, 304 (1979) (hearsay error rendered harmless by defendant's "own testimony corroborating the factual Challenging another evidentiary......
-
Clay v. Com.
...error when the content of the extra-judicial declaration is clearly established by other competent evidence." Schindel v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 814, 817, 252 S.E.2d 302, 304 (1979). The erroneous exclusion of evidence, however, raises different concerns. If the fact sought to be proved by t......
-
Seis v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1619-06-3 (Va. App. 11/27/2007)
...erred in ruling that Deputy Michael's testimony regarding the registration of the car was not hearsay. See Schindel v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 814, 817, 252 S.E.2d 302, 304 (1979) (admission of hearsay testimony harmless error when content of extrajudicial statement established by other compe......
-
Brown v. Com.
...elicited from Pleasants and Waddy were hearsay and improperly admitted, their admission was harmless error. Schindel v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 814, 817, 252 S.E.2d 302, 304 (1979) ("Even though testimony is objectionable as hearsay, its admission is harmless error when the content of the ext......