Virginia Portsmouth City Actual Possession Drug Firm Lawyers Attorneys

Virginia Portsmouth City Actual Possession Drug Firm Lawyers Attorneys

by

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

PETER ASLEY v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Facts:

A detective stopped defendant’s car, Mirandized him, and told him of an informant’s tip that defendant was in that location selling crack cocaine. A search of defendant’s person yielded a small amount of crack. He admitted having more crack at his residence, and gave the detective his apartment keys. Police recovered a loaded gun, 114 grams of crack, scales, and packaging paraphernalia from the residence. Defendant argued that 18.2-308.4(C) required proof of simultaneous actual possession of both drugs and a firearm. After a bench trial in the Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia, defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute and possessing a firearm while possessing

cocaine

with the intent to distribute (Va. Code Ann. 18.2-308.4(C)). He appealed the latter conviction.

Issues:

Whether the trial court erred in concluding that evidence of constructive possession of either the drugs or the firearm or both was sufficient to support his conviction?

Was proof of actual possession required under Code 18.2-308.4(C)?

Discussion:

The appellate court disagreed; proof of constructive possession was sufficient. A conviction under 18.2-308.4(C) did not require proof that defendant possessed the gun “in a threatening manner,” as defendant argued, but did require proof of a nexus between the drug offense and the gun he possessed. As defendant admitted owning the gun and crack found in his bedroom, and the detective had stopped him in his car two before the arrest, at which time he had the loaded gun with him, the evidence established that his gun protected his drugs, thereby providing the necessary nexus between his constructive possession of the handgun and the drugs.

Conclusion:

For these reasons, this Court held that the trial court did not err in concluding that evidence of appellant’s constructive possession of the drugs and the firearm was sufficient to support his conviction for violating Code 18.2-308.4(C) and that proof of actual possession was not required. Thus, we affirm the challenged conviction.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the

SRIS Law Group

. They represent the firm s unofficial views of the Justices opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah is a Virginia lawyer and owner of the SRIS Law Group. The SRIS Law Group has offices in Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York,

North Carolina

& California. The firm handles criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration & bankruptcy cases.

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com