COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Frank and Humphreys 

Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia 

ANTONIO LAMONT MOZELLE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2277-00-1 JUDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS 

 OCTOBER 9, 2001 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH 

Johnny E. Morrison, Judge 

 Andrew Kolp, Assistant Public Defender 

(Dianne G. Ringer, Senior Assistant Public 

Defender, on brief), for appellant. 

 Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Antonio Lamont Mozelle appeals his conviction, after a 

bench trial, for possession of cocaine with intent to 

distribute. Mozelle argues that the trial court erred in 

admitting a fingerprint card after a sheriff's deputy testified 

she could not recall the date on which she took the fingerprint 

impressions. Mozelle also contends that the evidence was 

insufficient to sustain the conviction. 

 On July 21, 1998, Detective B.J. Karpowski, III, of the 

Portsmouth Police Department, received a telephone call from an 

unknown informant stating that "Tony Mozelle was at 2915 Shady 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.
Lane cutting up a bunch of cocaine in that house." Karpowski 

knew Mozelle. He and other detectives immediately went to 2915 

Shady Lane. When they arrived, they observed Mozelle "standing 

out front with some other individuals around his car." The 

owner of the house, Mozelle's uncle, gave the detectives 

permission to search the house. 

 After entering the house and informing the occupants of the 

reason for the search, one of the individuals in the house 

directed the detectives to "look around outside on the ground." 

Based on this information, Karpowski and another detective went 

outside and began looking on the ground, next to a tree across 

the street at another house, 2914 Shady Lane. Karpowski found a 

Herr's Sour Cream and Onion potato chip bag "concealed at the 

base of the tree." Inside the bag was a baggie containing crack 

cocaine. 

 Karpowski picked up the bag with his "thumb and forefinger" 

and walked out into the street where Mozelle was standing. 

Karposwki asked Mozelle and his companions if "anyone knew whose 

bag of chips it was." When no one would claim ownership, 

Karpowski asked Mozelle, "Have you been eating any chips out 

there today?" Mozelle replied "No, sir," and Karpowski again 

stated, "You haven't been eating any Herr's sour cream and onion 

potato chips?" Mozelle said, "No, sir. I haven't had any chips 

at all." Karpowski stated, "So you haven't handled this bag at 

all and there is no reason whatsoever for your fingerprints to 

- 2 -
be on this bag; right?" Mozelle then replied, "Man, I ain't had 

no chips. I ain't never touched that bag, and my fingerprints 

ain't on that bag." The officers then left the scene, taking 

the potato chip bag and cocaine. 

 Upon arriving at the police station, Karpowski gave the 

potato chip bag and the bag of cocaine to Detective P.J. Grover 

who packaged the items and later sent them to the forensic unit 

for analysis. Members of the forensic unit tested the substance 

found in the bag, which tested positive for cocaine.1 They also 

examined the potato chip bag for fingerprints and found three 

sets of latent prints on the bag. Print number one was a 

positive match with a fingerprint card that had been taken of 

"Antonio Lamont Mozelle" on June 29, 1998.2 

 On August 11, 1998, Karpowski secured a warrant for 

Mozelle's arrest for possession with intent to distribute 

cocaine. The next day, he responded back to the area of 2914 

Shady Lane in an unmarked car, and found Mozelle standing in the 

roadway. Karpowski advised Mozelle that he was not under arrest 

and again asked Mozelle if he had touched the "[potato chip] 

bag." Mozelle stated, "I'm telling you I ain't never touched 

 1

 An expert testified at trial that the cocaine contained in 

the bag had an approximate street value of $1,500. 

2

 The other two fingerprints were insufficient for 

comparison, and/or contained insufficient ridge detail to either 

confirm or eliminate a potential match to Mozelle's fingerprint 

card. 

- 3 -
that bag." Karpowski then left and called for a marked unit to 

arrest Mozelle. 

 During trial, Deputy Sheriff Angela Clifton identified 

Mozelle, testified that she took Mozelle's prints on June 29, 

1998, and stated that he had signed the fingerprint card. The 

fingerprint card was admitted into evidence without objection. 

When asked on cross-examination if she could identify Mozelle 

after two years, Clifton stated, "I have seen him come in the 

jail. I can't say that I remember fingerprinting him on June 

29, 1998, but I know who Antonio Mozelle is." When asked, "Now, 

on June 29, 1998, do you recognize this man as someone you took 

fingerprints from?" Clifton responded, "I can't do that from 

two years ago." 

 Mozelle objected to subsequent testimony from an expert in 

latent fingerprint identification to the effect that the 

fingerprint found on the potato chip bag matched the June 29, 

1998 fingerprint card. Mozelle argued, based upon Crawley v. 

Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 372, 512 S.E.2d 169 (1999), that 

Clifton's testimony was insufficient to establish he was the 

individual whose prints appeared on the fingerprint card. The 

trial court overruled the objection. At the close of the 

Commonwealth's case, Mozelle moved to strike alleging that the 

evidence was insufficient to convict based on the quantity of 

the drug, as well as the failure of identification through the 

fingerprint evidence. Mozelle argued that the fingerprint 

- 4 -
evidence standing alone was insufficient to support the charge 

and that there was no evidence Mozelle touched or possessed the 

inner bag containing the cocaine. Mozelle also argued again 

that Clifton's testimony was insufficient to establish that 

Mozelle was the individual who had submitted the fingerprints 

found on the June 29, 1998 fingerprint card. 

 The trial court denied Mozelle's motion, finding Clifton 

had stated "on that particular date that she remembers seeing 

him, but from the card and the name and the person who had to 

sign it, she also said she knows this man." The trial court 

stated, "You can't go back that many years and say that I know 

for a fact that he is the one that I took those prints from, but 

in taking everything into consideration and the fact that she 

said she knows him by the name, because she's seen him back and 

forth in jail," her testimony was sufficient to establish that 

Mozelle was the individual whose prints were on the June 29, 

1998 fingerprint card. The trial court then convicted Mozelle 

as charged. 

 On appeal, Mozelle argues that the trial court erred in 

overruling his objection concerning the testimony pertaining to 

the fingerprint match. Mozelle does not, as the Commonwealth 

contends, contest the admissibility of the fingerprint card. In 

addition, Mozelle argues that the trial court erred in 

overruling his motion to strike as there was insufficient 

- 5 -
evidence to prove he constructively possessed the plastic bag 

and the cocaine contained within the potato chip bag. 

 Under familiar principles of appellate review, we examine 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as 

the party prevailing below, granting to it all reasonable 

inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Martin v. 

Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). 

The judgment of a trial court, sitting without a jury, is 

entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict and will be 

disturbed only if plainly wrong or without evidence to support 

it. See id.

 Mozelle correctly points out that in Crawley we held, where 

the Commonwealth proved only that the defendant's name was 

similar to that found on two police fingerprint cards and that 

the gender, race and height listed on the cards matched those of 

the perpetrator and the person seen fleeing the scene of the 

crime, the Commonwealth failed to establish identification of 

the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Crawley, 29 Va. App. 

at 379, 512 S.E.2d at 172-73. As we noted in Crawley, the 

Supreme Court has held that "'[w]hen the Commonwealth relies 

solely upon fingerprint evidence to identify a criminal agent, 

it bears the burden of excluding every reasonable hypothesis of 

innocence . . . .'" Id. at 378, 512 S.E.2d at 172 (quoting 

Tyler v. Commonwealth, 254 Va. 162, 166, 487 S.E.2d 221, 223 

(1997)). 

- 6 -
 Here, Clifton specifically identified Mozelle, and 

testified she took the prints on the card from Mozelle on the 

date indicated on the card. She also testified that Mozelle had 

signed the card. Viewing the circumstantial evidence of 

identity in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as we 

must, we hold that it was sufficient to support the 

determination of the trial court and to exclude all reasonable 

hypotheses of the contributor of the fingerprints on the card as 

being anyone other than appellant. 

 Further, we find the evidence sufficient to support the 

trial court's determination that Mozelle constructively 

possessed the drugs found inside the potato chip bag. Indeed, 

to be convicted of possession, the evidence must show that 

Mozelle was "aware of the presence and character of the 

controlled substance." Wright v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 743, 

748, 348 S.E.2d 9, 13 (1986). "Further, he may be deemed to 

have constructive possession of the substance if it was subject 

to his dominion and control." Id.

 Based upon the evidence presented, the trial court could 

infer, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mozelle was aware of the 

presence and character of the drugs and that they were subject 

to his dominion and control. The evidence proved that Mozelle's 

prints were on the potato chip bag, which contained the drugs. 

No prints belonging to any other individual were confirmed to 

have been found on the bag. Moreover, as described by Detective 

- 7 -
Karpowski, the bag was found "concealed" at the base of the 

tree, only a short distance from Mozelle. See Glasco v. 

Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 763, 774, 497 S.E.2d 150, 155 (1998), 

aff'd, 257 Va. 433, 513 S.E.2d 137 (1999) (noting that mere 

proximity to drugs is insufficient to establish possession, 

although it is a circumstance which may be probative in 

determining whether an accused possessed such drugs). Finally, 

Mozelle emphatically denied, on more than one occasion, that he 

had eaten potato chips from the bag, or that he had ever touched 

the bag. See Lilly v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 548, 556, 523 

S.E.2d 208, 212 (1999) ("False statements by a defendant may be 

probative of guilt."). 

 This evidence provided sufficient "other circumstances" 

which excluded any "reasonable" hypotheses of innocence. See

Turner v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 141, 146-47, 235 S.E.2d 357, 360 

(1977); see also Clagett v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 79, 93, 472 

S.E.2d 263, 271 (1996) ("A defendant's hypothesis negating the 

Commonwealth's theory of the case must be supported by some 

evidence in the record and may not arise from the imagination of 

the defendant or his counsel alone."). 

 For these reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial 

court. 

Affirmed.

- 8 -