Smith v. United States, 84-1120.
| Decision Date | 26 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1120.,84-1120. |
| Citation | 522 A.2d 1274 |
| Parties | Ronald SMITH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Charles E. Davidow, Washington, D.C., appointed by this court, was on brief, for appellant.
Joseph E. diGenova, U.S. Atty., and Michael W. Farrell and Laura R. Blumenfeld, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on brief, for appellee.
Before BELSON and TERRY, Associate Judges, and REILLY, Senior Judge.
Ronald Smith appeals from his conviction for possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia, D.C. Code § 33-603(a) (1986 Supp.), entered after a bench trial. Appellant contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction in three respects. First, he contends that the government failed to prove that he was in "constructive possession" of the drug paraphernalia. Second, appellant argues that the government failed to show that he intended to use the drug paraphernalia for one of the statutorily prohibited purposes. Third, appellant contends that the government failed to allege and prove an essential element of the statutory definition of drug paraphernalia, i.e., that the item was less than fifty years old. Finding no merit in any of these contentions, we affirm appellant's conviction.
The police officers who testified on behalf of the government stated that on September 12, 1983, they entered 1430 W Street, N.W., an apartment building frequented by users of illegal narcotics, to make a regular check of the building. On the second floor, the officers found the door to an apartment unhinged and leaning against the doorframe. They then heard noises emanating from within that apartment. When the officers entered the apartment, they saw three individuals sitting on the floor. The three individuals were later identified as Lynn Hopkins, Otis Banks, and appellant, Ronald Smith. Appellant Smith was not wearing a shirt. On the floor in front of Smith and his companions was an unfolded newspaper, and lying on top of the newspaper were several used syringes, a bottle cap cooker, a small empty plastic packet (later found to contain traces of heroin), a cigarette filter, a piece of tin foil, a cup of warm water, and a tourniquet. One of the syringes had a blood residue in it; the other syringes had a clear liquid residue in them. The bottle cap cooker had a charred bottom and contained a cigarette filter. Hopkins was bleeding from a puncture wound on the back of her left hand.
When the police officers entered the room, Banks jumped up and attempted to throw two objects out of the window. One of the officers recognized the smaller of the two objects as a quarter of heroin (a small quantity in which heroin commonly is sold at retail). A quarter of heroin was later recovered by one of the officers from the window ledge of the apartment. A syringe was found outside the window.
A police detective, who qualified as an expert in drugs and drug use, testified that the items seized by the police could be used to administer heroin. The quarter of heroin was of greater than usual strength, and sufficient for several average doses of heroin. The detective indicated that Drug Enforcement Administration laboratory tests showed no trace of any controlled substance on any of the syringes seized by the police.
In reviewing appellant's claim that the evidence did not suffice to support his conviction, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, giving it the benefit of all justifiable inferences legitimately drawn from the evidence. Hall v. United States, 454 A.2d 314, 317 (D.C. 1982). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, no distinction is made between direct and circumstantial evidence. Wheeler v. United States, 494 A.2d 170, 172 (D.C. 1985).
Possession of drug paraphernalia may be either actual or constructive. "Constructive possession exists where a person is knowingly in a position or has the right to exercise dominion and control over the item." United States v. Hubbard, 429 A.2d 1334, 1338 (D.C.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 857, 102 S.Ct. 308, 70 L.Ed.2d 153 (1981). To prove that appellant constructively possessed the paraphernalia, "the government was required to establish that the paraphernalia were conveniently accessible to him and that he knew of their presence." United States v. Covington, 459 A.2d 1067, 1071 (D.C. 1983). We have previously held that proximity to an illegal substance is not sufficient to support a conviction for constructive possession where the defendant is one of several individuals in the room and the defendant's status is that of a visitor. Wheeler, supra, 494 A.2d at 172-73. On the other hand, "[w]e have held that proximity may establish a supportable case of constructive possession of narcotics when colored by evidence linking the accused to an ongoing criminal operation of which that possession is a part." Id. at 173.
In the instant case, appellant was not, in the usual sense of the word, a "visitor" in the abandoned apartment in which he and the paraphernalia were found. Instead, he had trespassed into an abandoned apartment unit in a building that was frequently used as a "shooting gallery." Under the circumstances, there was sufficient evidence to support the government's theory of constructive possession, especially since the evidence in this case linked appellant with the ongoing criminal use of heroin. Cf. Curry v. United States, 520 A.2d 255, 264-66 (D.C. 1987) ().
The evidence showed that the paraphernalia were close to appellant and in his plain view. Other evidence, such as the warm water, the bleeding puncture wound on Hopkins' left hand, discarded syringes, tourniquet, and ashfilled bottle cap cooker, indicated that appellant and his companions were in the process of shooting heroin when the police arrived. A reasonable inference to be drawn from this evidence is that Hopkins had already received her injection of heroin, and that appellant, who was not wearing a shirt, was about to begin preparation of his own injection from the quarter packet of heroin in the room when the police interrupted his plans.
Thus, given the inferences legitimately drawn from the evidence adduced at trial, we find this evidence sufficient to show that appellant constructively possessed the paraphernalia and that he intended to use them to introduce a controlled substance into a person's body.
Appellant also contends that the government was required to prove that the drug paraphernalia he possessed were less than fifty years old. The government argues that D.C. Code § 33-601 "need be interpreted only as requiring the defendant to raise a genuine issue about . . . the age of the implement in order to require the government to prove, by expert testimony or otherwise, that it is less than fifty years old."1
The statute that defines the term "drug paraphernalia" excludes from that term "any article that is 50 years of age or older." D.C. Code § 33-601 (1986 Supp.). The structure and purpose of this legislation make it clear that this limitation to the definition of drug paraphernalia is properly read as an exception to criminal liability with respect to which the defendant must bear the burden of raising a genuine issue of fact. The definitional provision lists twelve types of objects, identified by their uses, which are "drug paraphernalia," and contains a noninclusive list of other paraphernalia consisting of many of the objects used for introducing controlled substances 4-5, into the body. The final sentence of § 33-601 provides that any article fifty years of age or older is not included within the term "drug paraphernalia."2
The structure of the act clearly implies that an article used for one of the enumerated unlawful purposes is presumed to be "drug paraphernalia" (this determination being guided by the factors listed in D.C. Code § 33-602 (1986 Supp.)) unless the defendant can show that it falls within the exception. Moreover, to read the statute as appellant suggests would frustrate its statutory purpose of prohibiting possession of any implement designed or marketed for consumption of controlled substances. See Chairperson David A. Clarke, Committee on the Judiciary, Council of the District of Columbia Report, Comments on Bill the Drug Paraphernalia Act of 1982, at 4-5 (April 28, 1982).
We derive support for this interpretation of the statute from Logan v. United States, 489 A.2d 485, 492-93 (D.C. 1985), in which Logan argued that the government...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. US, 89-1396.
...paraphernalia used to smoke crack cocaine. This was sufficient to establish appellant's possession of the scale. See Smith v. United States, 522 A.2d 1274, 1276 (D.C.1987) (government required to prove that "`the paraphernalia were conveniently accessible to appellant and that she knew of t......