Title: Wright v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 36, 2015
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 19, 2015

1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
  
PAUL WRIGHT, 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 36, 2015 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
Appellant, 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below: 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Superior Court of the 
v. 
 
 
 
§ 
State of Delaware, in and for  
§ 
New Castle County 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
 
§ 
 
§ 
Cr. I.D. No. 1406015553 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  September 30, 2015 
Decided:  October 19, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of October 2015, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief, the 
State of Delaware’s response, and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Paul Wright (“Wright”), filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s January 14, 2015 denial of his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.  The State of 
Delaware argues that the judgment below should be affirmed.  We agree and AFFIRM. 
(2) 
On June 19, 2014, Wright was arrested outside of the Fairview Inn in 
Wilmington, Delaware.  During May and June of that year, Detective Randolph Pfaf 
(“Pfaf”), a member of the City of Wilmington Police Department who was assigned to 
and deputized with the Drug Enforcement Administration, communicated with a 
2 
 
suspected drug dealer via text messages and phone calls to a certain cellular telephone 
number.  The communications during this period of time were with respect to a planned 
purchase by Pfaf of two “logs” of heroin—constituting approximately 260 individual 
bags of the prohibited substance—for $750 on June 19, 2014.  Pfaf was directed by the 
communicating individual, the suspected drug dealer, to proceed to room 165 at the 
Fairview Inn (“Room 165”) to consummate the transaction. 
(3)  
Upon arriving at the Fairview Inn, Pfaf observed Wright in front of the 
hotel’s office, located on the side opposite that of Room 165.  After obtaining a search 
warrant for Room 165, police officers executed the warrant, discovering a contraceptive 
box containing 26 bags of heroin within a bedside dresser.  Pfaf also discovered a bag of 
marijuana in Room 165.       
(4) 
Simultaneous with the execution of the search warrant, Detective Ahmard 
Reddick (“Reddick”) of the Wilmington Police Department observed Wright in front of 
the Fairview Inn’s office with a cellular phone in his possession.  Before arresting 
Wright, Reddick searched Wright and found no weapons, drug paraphernalia, or 
contraband.  Reddick discovered only a cellular phone, which Wright placed at his side 
upon the detective’s approach, and a key card granting access to Room 165.  When Pfaf 
redialed the cellular phone number he had previously been communicating with to 
arrange the heroin purchase, Wright’s phone rang, revealing an image of Wright and a 
child on the device’s screensaver.  Wright admitted to Reddick that the cellular phone 
was his.   
3 
 
(5)  
On January 14, 2015, after a two-day trial, a jury found Wright guilty of 
Possession of Heroin as a lesser included offense of Drug Dealing, as well as Possession 
of Marijuana.  At the conclusion of the prosecution’s case during the trial below, Wright 
moved for judgment of acquittal on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to prove 
beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly possessed the heroin and marijuana at 
issue.  The Superior Court denied the motion.  Wright was sentenced to 90 days of Level 
5 incarceration, with credit for 90 days served for the marijuana possession.  In addition, 
as a result of the heroin conviction, Wright was sentenced to 6 months of Level 5 
incarceration with credit for 130 days served, suspended after 130 days for 6 months of 
Level 3 supervision.  This appeal followed. 
(6) 
Wright contends that that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a 
reasonable doubt that he possessed the heroin and marijuana, and he requests that his 
convictions and sentences for possession of heroin and possession of marijuana be 
reversed.  Wright argues that mere proximity to controlled substances—or mere 
association with persons who have possession and control of such substances—is 
insufficient to establish his knowing possession and control. 
(7) 
“We review de novo a trial judge’s denial of a criminal defendant’s Motion 
for Judgment of Acquittal to determine whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the 
evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found the essential elements 
4 
 
of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.”1  Further, “[f]or the purposes of this 
inquiry, this Court does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence of [a] 
defendant’s guilt.”2   
(8) 
In order to “establish constructive possession [of a controlled substance], 
the State must present evidence that the defendant:  (1) knew the location of the drugs; 
(2) had the ability to exercise dominion and control over the drugs; and (3) intended to 
guide the destiny of the drugs.”3  This Court has found that “a prima facie case of 
constructive possession may be established if there is ‘evidence linking the accused to an 
ongoing criminal operation of which possession is a part.’”4  However, “mere proximity 
to, or awareness of[,] drugs is not sufficient to establish constructive possession.”5   
(9) 
Before June 19, 2014, the date of Wright’s arrest, Pfaf had been 
communicating via text messages and phone calls with a suspected drug dealer 
concerning a purchase of heroin, and Wright was in possession of the phone associated 
with the communicating telephone number on the day he was taken into custody.  
Further, during Pfaf’s discussions with the potential drug dealer, the latter instructed Pfaf 
to appear at Room 165 to complete the transaction.  Wright, at the time of his arrest, was 
waiting near Room 165 and possessed a key card required to access the room, which 
housed the controlled substances.  Therefore, viewing the evidence in a light most 
                                                          
 
1 White v. State, 906 A.2d 82, 85 (Del. 2006) (citing Priest v. State, 879 A.2d 575, 577 (Del. 
2005)) (emphasis in original); see also Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982, 989 (Del. 2004) (quoting 
Cline v. State, 720 A.2d 891, 892 (Del. 1998)). 
2 Hardin, 844 A.2d at 989 (quoting Cline, 720 A.2d at 892). 
3 White, 906 A.2d at 86 (quoting Hoey v. State, 689 A.2d 1177, 1181 (Del. 1997)); see also 
Wright v. State, 2014 WL 1003584, at *1 (Del. Mar. 7, 2014) (citations omitted). 
4 Wright, 2014 WL 1003584, at *1 (quoting Hoey, 689 A.2d at 1181) (emphasis added). 
5 White, 906 A.2d at 86 (internal citations omitted). 
5 
 
favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could properly determine beyond a 
reasonable doubt that Wright knew the location of the quantities of heroin and marijuana 
at issue.  Similarly, given the presence of the key card on Wright’s person and Pfaf’s 
drug-related communications with the number associated with Wright’s cellular phone, a 
reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Wright exercised dominion 
and control over the heroin and marijuana at issue in this case.  
(10) 
Wright’s reliance on this Court’s holding in White v. State6 does not change 
this result.  In White, police searched the apartment of the defendant’s son, who had been 
the subject of an investigation for his possible involvement in selling drugs.  The 
defendant was present at the time of the search, as she was residing at her son’s 
apartment on a temporary basis.  In the walk-in closet of the master bedroom, police 
found 177 grams of white powdered cocaine, 6.5 grams of uncolored crack cocaine in a 
women’s shoe, and 3.16 grams of marijuana.  Upon searching the defendant’s person, 
police discovered 4.63 grams of pink crack cocaine in her right sock.  The police found 
nothing of the defendant’s in the walk-in closet.  The State prosecuted the defendant for 
Trafficking in Cocaine over 100 grams and Conspiracy to Traffic in Cocaine.  At the 
close of the State’s case, the trial judge denied the defendant’s Motion for Judgment of 
Acquittal.  On appeal from the trial judge’s denial of the motion, this Court found that 
“no rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that [the defendant] exercised 
                                                          
 
6 906 A.2d 82 (Del. 2006).   
6 
 
dominion and control over, or ‘intended to guide the destiny of,’ the white powdered 
cocaine found in the walk-in closet.”7 
(11) 
Wright’s possession of both a key card granting access to Room 165 and 
the cellular phone used to arrange the transaction in the same space would enable a 
reasonable jury to conclude that he constructively possessed the heroin and marijuana.  In 
White, the defendant’s strongest link to the controlled substances was her proximity to the 
drugs and temporary residence in her son’s apartment where they were found.  Here, 
Wright possessed the key card necessary to enter Room 165 and the cellular phone used 
to arrange the alleged sale.  The cellular phone was admittedly his, it bore his image on 
its screensaver, and it rang when Pfaf redialed the potential drug dealer’s number.  The 
key card and cellular phone would permit a rational jury to reach the conclusion beyond a 
reasonable doubt that Wright knew the location of the contraband, had the ability to 
exercise dominion and control over the drugs, and intended to guide the destiny of the 
controlled substances.  A rational jury, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to 
the State, could, therefore, properly reach the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that 
Wright committed the offenses charged. 
 
 
                                                          
 
7 Id. at 86. 
7 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          
Justice