Opinion ID: 2997401
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count Two: Possessing Marijuana with Intent to

Text: Deliver Bernitt claims that there was no evidence before the jury establishing that he made any sales or deliveries of mari- 1 (...continued) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 5 years and not more than 40 years . . . a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of Title 18, or $2,000,000 if the defendant is an individual.” 10 No. 03-3065 juana to anyone. To prove that the defendant possessed marijuana with the intent to deliver, the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following: (1) that the defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed marijuana; (2) that the defendant possessed marijuana with the intent to distribute it; and (3) that the defendant knew the substance he possessed and sought to distribute was a controlled substance. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); see also United States v. Starks, 309 F.3d 1017, 1022 (7th Cir. 2002). While there appears to have been no direct evidence presented which showed that Bernitt processed the drug for commercial purposes or delivered it to anyone, this circuit’s precedent holds that the quantity and packaging of drugs, as well as the presence of drug paraphernalia, can be sufficient to support the inference of an intent to distribute. Hence, this evidence can support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). See United States v. Folks, 236 F.3d 384, 390-92 (7th Cir. 2001) (finding that plastic bags and a scale covered with drug residue constituted evidence to support conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled susbstance); United States v. Billops, 43 F.3d 281, 285 n.5 (7th Cir. 1994) (“A conviction for possession with intent to distribute under § 841(a) can be supported by the possession of a quantity of drugs larger than needed for personal use.” (internal quotations omitted)) and cases cited therein; United States v. Garrett, 903 F.2d 1105, 1113 & n.10 (7th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases which regard packaging of drugs as supporting inference of intent to distribute). The government presented the following evidence: (1) the presence of over 300 healthy, well-tended marijuana plants on Bernitt’s property; (2) a weighing scale with marijuana residue; and (3) two ziplock bags of the drugs evenly measured at approximately 138 grams each, stored in Bernitt’s refrigerator. All of this evidence, viewed in the government’s favor, supports the jury’s finding of guilt on this count. No. 03-3065 11 3. Count Three: Manufacturing Marijuana—Seized in September 2002 The basis for this count lies in the 281 marijuana plants the police found in the wooded area on Bernitt’s property on September 5, 2002. As the district court noted, the evidence presented at trial showed a mowed path on Bernitt’s property from his back garden to the wooded area; a footpath from the mowed area to the plants; that the plants were great in number (281) and in size (some over 8 feet tall); and that they were growing together in a bunch, rather than scattered the way in which wild marijuana plants tend to grow, according to Officer Hoell’s trial testimony. Applying the standard for review of sufficiency of the evidence challenges discussed above, a rational jury could have found Bernitt guilty on this count on these facts.