# Singley v. United States

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · November 5, 1987 · 533 A.2d 245

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702281

## Case

- **Full name:** Marion L. SINGLEY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee; Henry C. KIBLER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 5, 1987
- **Citations:** 533 A.2d 245; 1987 D.C. App. LEXIS 477
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Nebeker
- **Judges:** Ferren, Rogers, Nebeker
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702281

## Opinion text

NEBEKER, Associate Judge,
Retired, dissenting in part:
I would affirm appellant Singley’s conviction of possession of heroin. Even if this court might rationally hold that Detective Brown’s testimony falls short of proof of usability, I still would decline to direct acquittal under Edelin v. United States, 227 A.2d 395 (D.C.1967).
Singley herself testified on cross-examination that the tinfoil packet seized from her contained heroin which she intended to snort. She testified further that it was her ordinary practice to snort heroin and the amount of heroin seized was that which she regularly would be able to snort. I conclude from Singley’s unequivocal testimony and reasonable inference of narcotic effect which might be drawn therefrom, that a reasonable juror could, consistent with our holding in Edelin , find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, whatever deficiencies there may have been with the chemical analysis of the narcotics or the expert’s related testimony, as tested against Edelin , such deficiencies were compensated for by the “additional proof” of usability which Edelin expressly permits. See id. at 399 .
Singley’s testimony was direct, but not just as to her intent which the majority myopically excises from the rest of her testimony. She also confessed her practice in use and the content of the mixture she possessed for her own use. The jury surely could infer that her “snorting,” i.e. use, was for its narcotic effect. Why the majority will only settle for expert chemical analysis to prove usability it does not say and I cannot divine. In doing so it runs contrary to the express holding in Edelin that other evidence of usability may suffice. I thought this court long since ceased indulging in fantasies to conjure up an hypothesis of innocence. To say Singley might have snorted talcum powder is, on this record, comical.
I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702281. Public record. Not legal advice.