Opinion ID: 1858972
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: was the evidence sufficient to support the verdict on the matter of intent?

Text: Repeatedly this Court has stated that intent to sell or distribute contraband may be established by inference from circumstantial evidence. Jowers v. State, 593 So.2d 46, 47 (Miss. 1992); Jackson v. State, 580 So.2d 1217 (Miss. 1991); Bryant v. State, 427 So.2d 131, 132 (Miss. 1983); Hollingsworth v. State, 392 So.2d 515, 517 (Miss. 1981). This Court has also stated that intent is a question of fact to be gleaned by the jury from the facts shown in each case. Shanklin v. State, 290 So.2d 625, 627 (Miss. 1974). In a series of cases this Court has wrestled with the question of intent in cases where the primary evidence supporting intent is the quantity of drugs found. See e.g., Edwards v. State, 615 So.2d 590 (Miss. 1993). In the case cited by Boyd, Stringfield v. State, 588 So.2d 438 (Miss. 1991), under very different circumstances from this case, the Court reversed a conviction of intent to distribute. Stringfield was found with fourteen grams of rock cocaine or the equivalent of four days' supply. Stringfield did set out helpful commentary on what is required to show proof of possession with an intent to distribute or sell. The Court stated: It therefore follows that proof of possession with an intent to distribute or sell should not be based solely upon surmise or suspicion. There must be evidentiary facts which will rationally produce in the minds of jurors a certainty, a conviction beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did in actual fact intend to distribute or sell the cocaine, not that he might have such intent. It must be evidence in which a reasonable jury can sink its teeth. 588 So.2d at 440. The Court noted that criminal intent may be shown by surrounding circumstances. Id. at 441. In the present case it was the surrounding circumstances and the eyewitness testimony of Officer Carter that showed the intent. Boyd was not found with a large quantity of crack cocaine but was seen by officer Carter engaged in conduct which was characteristic of selling drugs in a locale known for that activity. Officer Carter had made over one hundred arrests in this area. Specifically, Officer Carter observed Boyd standing beside a stationary vehicle in the middle of Ash Street, with his head and hand inside an open car window. By all appearances, Boyd was negotiating a sale of drugs. When Boyd noticed Officer Carter, he immediately withdrew from the car window, balled up his hand and stuck it inside a jacket pocket. The driver of the vehicle sped away immediately. Officer Carter and Boyd knew each other from previous encounters, one of which, according to Boyd, was an arrest for possession of cocaine. When spotted by Officer Carter and told to stop, Boyd ran. A short hot pursuit chase ensued. Boyd tried to barricade himself in a bedroom in his mother's house and was seen by Officer Carter tossing something from his pocket. Drugs were found where Officer Carter saw something tossed by Boyd. The facts of this case remove it from comparison with Stringfield and Hicks v. State, 580 So.2d 1302 (Miss. 1991). The facts of both of those cases, relied upon by Boyd, failed to show some matter from which a jury could infer an intent to distribute a controlled substance. In the case sub judice there is such evidence of intent. The fact that Boyd only had two rocks of cocaine in his possession does not, under these facts, indicate that he did not intend to do what Officer Carter testified he saw Boyd doing. Officer Carter testified that curb service sales of drugs routinely were conducted in this area with the seller having only one or two rocks of cocaine in his possession so that if police happened upon the sale, the seller could swallow or throw the contraband. The facts of this case cast it into that category of cases where a small quantity of drugs alone is not the controlling factor in deciding intent of the defendant. In fact, the small quantity conforms to the characteristic street sale of drugs that Officer Carter had routinely observed on Ash Street. There was sufficient evidence to support the finding of intent to distribute or sell. This assignment of error is without merit.