Court Opinion

ID: 9620397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:41:49.424573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:50.085102
License: Public Domain

Willis, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority holding with respect to the trial court’s receipt of the certificates of analysis into evidence and its imposition of the sentence. However, I think the trial court erred in refusing Instruction H. In that regard, I dissent.
The Commonwealth was required to prove that Anderson knew the nature and character of the substances that he distributed. See Andrews v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 179, 182, 217 S.E.2d 812, 814 (1975); Williams v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 666, 669, 418 S.E.2d 346, 348 (1992). Had the jury concluded that Anderson believed the material was something other than a controlled substance, e.g. parsley, his mistaken belief would have been a defense requiring his acquittal.
*70I do not find Instruction H confusing. The identity of the distributed material as a controlled substance defined its nature and character. The first two sentences of Instruction H correctly set forth that proposition. The last sentence of the proposed instruction addresses not the nature and character of the substance, but the act of distribution. It correctly informs the jury that knowledge of the illegality of the act of distribution is not a required element of proof.
Evidence and argument of counsel are insufficient substitutes for the trial court’s exposition of the law governing the case and the elements required to be proven. Anderson was entitled to have that law and those elements plainly and accurately set forth in the instructions so that the jury might know the proper standards by which to judge the evidence and argument.
I would reverse because of the refusal of Instruction H and remand for a new trial on proper instructions.