Title: Laws v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 156, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 18, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RICHARD LAWS, 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  No. 156, 2003 
 
 
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. 0203007255 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  Cr.A. Nos. IN-02-03-1287, 1287 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
)     through 1291 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  October 7, 2003 
Decided:  December 18, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 18th  day of December 2003, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties, it appears to the Court as follows: 
 
1. 
On March 5, 2002, plain-clothed police officers Kyle Kent and 
Donald Dempsey were investigating suspected drug activity in a Wilmington 
neighborhood.  Around 8:00 p.m., the officers observed an unknown object being 
passed between two unidentified individuals with whom defendant-appellant 
Richard Laws was standing at the intersection of North Tatnall and Twentieth 
 
2
Streets.  Based upon their training and experience, the officers concluded that a 
drug transaction had occurred.1 
 
2. 
Laws and the two unidentified individuals walked around a corner and 
out of the officers’ view.  When the officers followed, they did not see the two 
individuals whom they believed were involved in the transaction but they did see 
Laws talking to another individual. Officer Kent got out of the vehicle, identified 
himself as a police officer, and asked Laws if he could speak with him.  Laws 
immediately fled. 
 
3. 
During the chase, Laws threw a gun into some bushes.  The chase 
ended on Laws’ front porch when he unsuccessfully attempted to enter his home.  
Officer Kent drew his gun and ordered Laws to lie on the porch.  Officer Dempsey 
maced Laws when he failed to comply with the order.  Laws’ mother testified 
when she asked what was happening on the porch, Laws stated, “Mom, I have 
something to tell you.  I’m sorry.  I’m smoking.”2  Laws was arrested and taken to 
the hospital. 
 
4. 
At the hospital, Laws told the officers that he had a bottle containing 
four “bags” inside his pants.  The police reached under his waistband and retrieved 
a pill bottle containing six small bags of crack cocaine.  When Officer Kent asked 
                                                 
1   The officers only witnessed one delivery and never observed anything being offered in return 
for the delivery(i.e. drugs in exchange for money).  At trial, Jamal Walston testified he was 
giving Keandra Midget a few dollars for lunch the following day.  In any event, both parties 
agreed that Laws was not a party to the transaction. 
2   Appendix at A-20. 
 
3
what he was doing with the drugs, Laws replied “that he needed some extra 
money.”3  Laws denied making this statement. 
 
5. 
A jury convicted Laws of Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine, 
various gun offenses, and resisting arrest.  On appeal, Laws claimed that: (i) the 
trial court erroneously denied his motion for judgment of acquittal; and (ii) the 
evidence cannot sustain a conviction for Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine.  
Specifically, Laws argues that no rational trier of fact could have concluded, based 
solely on the packaging of the drugs he possessed, that he had the requisite intent 
to deliver.  The first inquiry involves a de novo review of the judge’s denial of the 
motion for judgment of acquittal.4  The second involves an assessment of the 
sufficiency of the evidence for a determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.5 
 
6. 
In Cline, this Court held that an “intent to distribute” may be 
established through evidence of an additional element beyond mere possession.6  
This additional element may include: (i) an admission by the defendant that the 
drugs were not for personal use; (ii) expert testimony about the amount or the type 
of packaging generally used by sellers vs. users; or, (iii) some other credible 
evidence.7 
                                                 
3   Appendix at A-18. 
4   Cline v. State, 720 A.2d 891, 892 (Del. 1998). 
5   Skinner v. State, 575 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Del. 1990). 
6   720 A.2d. 891, 892. 
7 Id. at 893. 
 
4
 
7. 
Here, the additional element is satisfied by Laws’s admission to the 
officers that he possessed the drugs because he needed extra money.  Further, the 
fact that Laws possessed a gun, but no drug paraphernalia, at the time of his arrest 
is sufficient credible evidence of intent to “deliver” the drugs.  Thus, while the 
packaging and quantity of the cocaine, the location of the incident, and Laws’s 
flight might be equal indicators of either possession for personal use or intent to 
deliver, his admission, his possession of a gun, and his lack of drug paraphernalia 
sufficiently form a basis from which a reasonable person could infer an intent to 
deliver. 
 
8. 
Accordingly, the trial judge did not err by denying Laws’ Motion for 
Judgment of Acquittal.  Further, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence from 
which a rational trier of fact could find Laws guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of 
Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine. 
 
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