Title: Perkins v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 464, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 13, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
KEITH PERKINS, 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  No. 464, 2002 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
) 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
)  Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  of the State of Delaware in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
)  and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
)  Cr. ID. No. 0005003075 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
) 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  February 4, 2003 
Decided:  February 13, 2003 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 13th day of February 2003, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In June 2002, a Superior Court jury convicted appellant Keith Perkins 
of Possession With Intent to Deliver a Narcotic Schedule II Controlled Substance 
(cocaine)1 and Possession of a Controlled Substance (cocaine) Within 1000 Feet of 
a School Zone.2  In this appeal, Perkins claims that the trial court erred by denying 
his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the conclusion of the State’s case.  We 
conclude that the trial court properly denied Perkins’ motion and that his 
conviction should be affirmed. 
                                                          
 
1 16 Del. C. § 4751. 
2 Id. at § 4767(a)(1).   
 
2
(2) 
At trial, Perkins moved to dismiss both charges, arguing that the 
State’s evidence was insufficient to establish: (i) he possessed the drugs found by 
the officers and (ii) he had the intent to deliver the drugs.  We review the denial of 
a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo to determine whether any rational trier 
of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find the 
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.3  After doing so here, we conclude 
that the State presented sufficient evidence for the jury to consider the charges.  
(3) 
The evidence introduced at trial showed that an officer observed 
Perkins engage in two apparent drug transactions in an area notorious for drug 
activities.  Perkins called out to one vehicle stating, “I’m the one you are looking 
for” and later stepped out on the street waiving to a second vehicle.  The officer 
observed Perkins exchanging something for cash in both instances and the officer 
specifically observed Perkins remove a plastic sandwich bag from his pocket 
during the second transaction.  A sandwich bag similar to that observed containing 
seventeen ten-dollar bags of crack cocaine was found in close proximity to the 
chair in which Perkins had been sitting and along the path he walked when the 
officers approached.  In conjunction with this evidence, additional inferences of 
criminal conduct can be drawn from his immediate attempt to depart the area when 
the officers approached.  A rational trier of fact could easily infer that the 
                                                          
 
3 Seward v. State, 723 A.2d 365, 369 (Del. 1999). 
 
3
defendant dropped the bag of drugs on the ground as the uniformed officers came 
into view and therefore, that Perkins possessed the cocaine.  That same trier of fact 
could conclude based on the officers’ observations that Perkins was selling drugs 
to various motorists.  Accordingly, the trial judge properly denied Perkins’s 
motion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_/s/ Myron T. Steele______________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice