Womack v. Com., 781136
| Decision Date | 08 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 781136,781136 |
| Citation | 220 Va. 5,255 S.E.2d 351 |
| Parties | William Franklin WOMACK, Jr. v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Allen C. Tanner, Jr., Newport News (Mason, Gibson, Cowardin & Spencer, Newport News, on brief), for appellant.
Robert H. Anderson, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Marshall Coleman, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.
Before I'ANSON, C. J., and CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, POFF and COMPTON, JJ.
Defendant, William Franklin Womack, Jr., waived trial by jury on an indictment charging him with possession of "Preludin (Phenmetrazine), Methaqualone, Oxycodone Secobarbital, and Amphetamine," * all Schedule II controlled substances under Code § 54-524.84:6. He was found guilty as charged and sentenced to four years in the State penitentiary with two years suspended.
Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish that he was in possession of the drugs as alleged in the indictment. He says he was not indicted or convicted for possession of the type of specific drugs found on his person, "but rather was indicted and convicted of possession of other drugs which were found scattered throughout an apartment which he did not own."
On the afternoon of September 28, 1977, several Newport News police officers went to an apartment in that city to execute a search warrant. After knocking on the door, they heard a rustling noise inside and were denied admittance. A second knock on the door and an announcement that they were police officers failed to gain admission. They finally obtained entry into the apartment by using a pass-key, furnished by the owner of the apartment complex, and by exerting force on the door to overcome pressure applied from the inside.
Upon entering the apartment, the officers saw four individuals in the living room and observed the defendant and another person moving rapidly from the kitchen and dining room areas toward the living room. A massive amount of illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia was strewn in plain view throughout the apartment. After arresting the six persons in the apartment, the police conducted a search of the premises. None of the persons arrested was an owner or tenant of the premises. The dining room table alone "was loaded" with pills, capsules, spoons filled with narcotic powders and liquids, needles, syringes, a cooking set and a set of scales. Approximately 5,000 pills and capsules and some 300 needles and syringes were found at various places in the apartment. Upon a search of the defendant's person, two capsules containing pentobarbital, a controlled drug, were found in his shirt pocket. The drug analysis report introduced into evidence revealed that all the pills, capsules and powders were controlled drugs and that 79 of the capsules seized contained pentobarbital.
The defendant made no statement to the officers when he was arrested or during the search of the premises. Defendant presented no evidence at trial.
To sustain a conviction for possession of a controlled drug, it is generally necessary to show that the accused was aware of the presence and character of the particular controlled substance and that he consciously and intentionally possessed it. Constructive possession of a controlled drug may be shown by establishing that the drug was subject to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armstead v. Commonwealth Of Va.
...Va. 447, 451, 281 S.E.2d 853, 855 (1981) (taking into account that the drugs were “visible” to the defendant); Womack v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 5, 8, 255 S.E.2d 351, 353 (1979) (finding constructive possession, in part, based upon the “visibility of the Haskins, 44 Va.App. at 9-10, 602 S.E.2......
-
Ferebee v. Commonwealth
...Thus, in resolving this issue, we must consider "the totality of the circumstances disclosed by the evidence." Womack v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 5, 8, 255 S.E.2d 351, 353 (1979). Appellant cites Coward v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 653, 633 S.E.2d 752 (2006), to support his position. However, ......
-
Williams v. Com.
...established by the evidence. Archer v. Commonwealth, 26 Va.App. 1, 12, 492 S.E.2d 826, 832 (1997) (citing Womack v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 5, 8, 255 S.E.2d 351, 353 (1979)). The trial court's finding that Williams was aware that drugs were present in the car is amply supported by the evidenc......
-
Ricks v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2534-03-1 (VA 1/11/2005)
...in resolving this issue, the Court must consider "the totality of the circumstances disclosed by the evidence." Womack v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 5, 8, 255 S.E.2d 351, 353 (1979). Circumstantial evidence of such possession is sufficient to support a conviction, provided it excludes every reas......