Title: Wright v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 487, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 7, 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DWAYNE E. WRIGHT,  
§ 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 487, 2013  
 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
§ 
 
Appellant, 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court  
 
  
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and  
v.  
§ 
for New Castle County  
 
 
§  
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
§ 
No. 1206005342 
 
§  
 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  January 9, 2014 
Decided:  March 7, 2014 
 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
On this 7th day of March 2014, it appears to the Court that:  
(1)  Defendant-Below/Appellant Dwayne Wright appeals from a jury 
conviction in the Superior Court of two counts of Drug Dealing.  Wright raises one 
claim on appeal.  Wright contends that that the trial court erred when it denied his 
Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.  We find no merit to Wright’s appeal and 
affirm.  
(2)  In 2012 and in response to a complaint about drug sales in the 
neighborhood, Officer Erin Metzner conducted surveillance using binoculars from 
a second-story classroom in the Bancroft Elementary School in Wilmington.  
Officer Metzner saw Wright, who was standing near the school, conducting hand-
2 
to-hand drug transactions.  According to Officer Metzner, Wright “was approached 
by several different subjects,” who would hand him what appeared to be currency 
in exchange for a small, imperceptible object.1  Officer Metzner then saw Wright 
walk about thirty feet to a trashcan, lean over at the waist and place an object 
inside the trashcan and walk back.  He later testified that the object was small and 
dark, but he could not tell what it was. 
(3)  Officer Metzner then had two other officers detain Wright.  The officers 
conducted a pat-down search of Wright and two other individuals who were with 
him.  But they did not find any weapons or other contraband.  Officer Metzner also 
advised the other officers to search the trashcan.  Officers discovered a common 
black garbage bag containing six sandwich bags of marijuana and eleven small 
bags of heroin in the trash can.  The State did not provide any DNA, fingerprint, or 
other physical evidence linking the bag in the trashcan to Wright.  The officers 
then arrested Wright, conducted a search incident to an arrest, and found $293 in 
cash in Wright’s pockets but no weapons, drugs, paraphernalia, or other 
contraband.   
(4)  Wright was indicted on two counts of drug dealing and one count of 
loitering.  The State entered a nolle prosequi on the loitering charge and the case 
went to a jury trial in the Superior Court.  After an initial mistrial, Wright moved 
                                          
 
1 Appellant’s Op. Br. Appendix at A19.  
3 
for a judgment of acquittal at the end of the second jury trial.  The trial court 
denied Wright’s motion.  Thereafter, the jury convicted Wright on both counts.  
The court declared Wright a Habitual Offender and sentenced him to five years in 
prison.  This appeal followed.   
(5)  Wright contends that the Superior Court erred when it denied his Motion 
for Acquittal because the State failed to prove that Wright had constructive 
possession of the drugs found on the scene.  “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 of the crimes charged beyond 
a reasonable doubt.”2   
(6)  “In order to establish constructive possession, 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  Evidence of a defendant’s constructive possession may 
consist of direct or circumstantial evidence.4  We have found that “a prima facie 
case of constructive possession may be established if there is ‘evidence linking the 
                                          
 
2 White v. State, 906 A.2d 82, 85 (Del. 2006) (citing Priest v. State, 879 A.2d 575, 577 (Del. 
2005)). 
3 Hoey v. State, 689 A.2d 1177, 1181 (Del. 1997) (citing McNulty v. State, 655 A.2d 1214, 1217 
(Del. 1995)). 
4 White, 906 A.2d at 86 (quoting Hoey, 689 A.2d at 1181).  
4 
accused to an ongoing criminal operation of which possession is a part.’”5  But 
“mere proximity to, or awareness of drugs is not sufficient to establish constructive 
possession.”6  Nor is a mere suspicion sufficient.7  
(7)  Wright argues that the circumstantial evidence presented by the State 
was insufficient for a reasonable jury to find constructive possession beyond a 
reasonable doubt because the State did not provide any physical evidence, such as 
fingerprints, DNA, or drugs or paraphernalia on his person, linking Wright to the 
drugs in the bag.  In support of his argument, Wright cites cases from other 
jurisdictions that overturned jury convictions based on insufficient evidence.  In 
Lindsey v. State, the Florida District Court of Appeal overturned a conviction for 
failure to prove constructive possession of a passenger-defendant where drugs 
were found along the highway following a high-speed chase with the driver.8  The 
court explained that because “the contraband is found in a public place, more than 
mere proximity to the defendant must be shown to sustain a conviction.”9  It also 
held that the State failed to establish “dominion and control over the bag of 
contraband.”10  And in State v. Brunori, the Connecticut Appellate Court held that 
police testimony that witnessed the defendant bend down in public place with his 
                                          
 
5 Hoey, 689 A.2d at 1181 (quoting McNulty, 655 A.2d at 1217). 
6 White, 906 A.2d at 86. 
7 Id. at 89. 
8 Lindsey v. State, 793 So. 2d 1165, 1167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001). 
9 Id.  
10 Id.  
5 
arm stretched in proximate area in which police subsequently discovered cocaine 
and a hypodermic needle was insufficient to support constructive possession.11  
The court explained that the State failed to meet its burden because the officer did 
not testify that he actually witnessed the defendant discarding anything as he bent 
over.12  Rather, the testimony could establish at best that the defendant bent down 
as if he were dropping something.13  
(8)  Essentially, Wright is arguing that his conviction must be overturned 
because it is only supported by circumstantial evidence.  But “this Court no longer 
distinguishes between direct and circumstantial evidence in a conviction 
context.”14  And unlike the defendants in Lindsey and Brunori, the record 
demonstrates more than a suspicion or possibility that Wright had constructive 
possession of the drugs.  Officer Metzner watched Wright lean into the trashcan 
and place a dark object inside.  He also monitored Wright conducting hand-to-hand 
transactions.  Therefore, Wright’s argument that the State failed to prove 
constructive possession is without merit.   
(9)  In this case, the trial court did not err when it denied Wright’s Motion 
for Judgment of Acquittal.  Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the 
State, a reasonable juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Wright had 
                                          
 
11 State v. Brunori, 578 A.2d 139, 142–43 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990). 
12 Id. at 143. 
13 Id.  
14 Hoey, 689 A.2d at 1181. 
6 
constructive possession of the bag of heroin and marijuana.  Officer Metzner 
observed Wright reach into the trashcan that contained the drugs.  That permitted a 
reasonable inference that Wright knew of the location of the drugs.  Further, 
Wright bent over into the trashcan and placed a dark object inside.  The State 
demonstrated that by bending over Wright could touch and control anything inside 
the trashcan, which included the drugs.  Finally, it is not unreasonable to infer that 
Wright’s hand-to-hand transactions observed by Officer Metzner showed that he 
was controlling the destiny of the drugs in the trashcan.  Therefore, the State 
established that Wright’s possession of the drugs was more than a mere suspicion.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice