noting that when considering whether the defendant possessed multiple types of drugs with intent to distribute, his “assertion that he uses one type of drug, contrasted with his silence regarding the use of the other type ‘undermine[ed] [the defendant]’s argument that personal use is the only reasonable hypothesis of possession’” (quoting Harper v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 517, 522 , 642 S.E.2d 779, 781 (2007))
How later courts described this case
- noting that when considering whether the defendant possessed multiple types of drugs with intent to distribute, his “assertion that he uses one type of drug, contrasted with his silence regarding the use of the other type ‘undermine[ed] [the defendant]’s argument that personal use is the only reasonable hypothesis of possession’” (quoting Harper v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 517, 522 , 642 S.E.2d 779, 781 (2007))
- “We have consistently held that the absence of paraphernalia consistent with use is another factor indicating that the drugs were possessed with the intent to distribute.”
- applying the same logic to a defendant’s “silence regarding the use” of the drug he was charged with possessing with an intent to distribute
- “the Commonwealth need only exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence that flow from the evidence, not those that spring from the imagination of the defendant” (quoting Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 751, 755 (1993))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ELDER, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set forth in the June 2, 2009 majority memorandum opinion of the panel. See Scott v. Commonwealth, No. 1482-08-2, 2009 WL 1514503 , 2009 Va.App. LEXIS 251 (Va. Ct.App. June 2, 2009).