Travis McRae v. United States (decided November 3, 2016).
Players:
Associate Judges Glickman and Thompson, Senior Judge Ferren. Opinion by Judge
Glickman. Robin Earnest for Mr. McRae.
Trial Judge: Anita Josey-Herring.
Facts: Mr. McRae was standing outside of an apartment building with several
other men when the MPD gun recovery unit pulled up. Mr. McRae ran into the building, through an
apartment, and out the back door. An
officer chased him but could not keep up. However, the officer did find Mr.
McRae’s discarded jacket and in one of the pockets, there was 4/5 of an ounce
of marijuana. Police searched the
apartment that Mr. McRae ran through and found a digital scale and ziplock bags
of varied size and color. Drug expert Detective
George Thomas testified that the scales and bags are often used for drug
dealing, but usually not for dealing marijuana, and that although 4/5 of an
ounce of marijuana has a street value of over $200, it was not unusual for a
person to purchase that much weed for personal consumption. Det. Thomas also said that the weed that
police found in McRae’s jacket was not packaged in a way that indicated it
would later be distributed.
Issue: Was the evidence sufficient to
prove that Mr. McRae possessed the marijuana with the intention of distributing
it?
Holding: No. Because there was no
direct evidence of distribution or of Mr. McRae’s intent to distribute, the
government had to rely on inferential evidence.
While normally, evidence of a quantity of drugs that “exceeds supply for
personal use” or packaging “in a manner indicative of further distribution” can
carry the government’s burden of proof, here, “that sort of evidence was strikingly
absent.” There was no evidence that the
weed was packaged in a way that indicated distribution rather than personal
use, and the quantity of marijuana was within the realm of that purchased for
personal use, even if it was unlikely that it could all be smoked in one “lazy
hazy weekend.” The paraphernalia in the
apartment did not change this calculus because the government’s expert
testified that the paraphernalia found is often used in connection with other
drugs, not weed, and it is perfectly possible for a dealer of one type of drug
to personally use marijuana. DH
No comments:
Post a Comment