Court Opinion

ID: 9580998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:10:56.327634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:38.908913
License: Public Domain

*739McCLANAHAN, J.,
concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part.
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that Merritt’s argument regarding his motion to suppress was not preserved and in the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict for after-discovered evidence. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s reversal of the convictions. Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 514, 578 S.E.2d 781, 786 (2003), I disagree the evidence was insufficient for the jury to conclude Merritt was guilty.
Merritt and Bolton arrived at a bus station known as a major pipeline of narcotics into the city in a vehicle that was ultimately parked in a dark area of the lot facing the road to provide easy access back to the highway. Merritt was observed “shadowing” the movements of McDaniels and Spratley, holding a cell phone to his ear without speaking into it or showing any emotion, and continually “scanning” the parking lot. While McDaniels and Bolton placed the drugs into the trunk of the vehicle, Merritt posted himself behind them as he continued to scan the parking lot. Merritt’s actions were described as being consistent with the actions undertaken by police officers conducting surveillance of undercover detectives in that Merritt attempted to be covert, work with his environment, and act disinterested without drawing attention to himself. In fact, Merritt’s actions to protect the safety of the drug transaction were compared to the actions of a surveillance officer in protecting the safety of an undercover officer.
At no time did Merritt acknowledge McDaniels or Spratley while following them in the parking lot thus supporting the reasonable inference that he was not there to meet them and lead them to the vehicle.9 The only logical inference from this evidence is that Merritt was acting as a lookout while McDan*740iels and Spratley transported the drugs through the parking lot. Although Merritt claimed not to know Bolton, McDaniels or Spratley well, he told Detective Massetti that “Tony,” Anthony McDaniels, was the one who “wheeled the bag across the parking lot” indicating a sufficient familiarity with McDaniels to use a nickname. Furthermore, calls to McDaniels were found in Merritt’s cell phone. In fact, police discovered a large number of phone calls made between the cell phones found on Merritt, Bolton, and MeDaniels in the several days immediately preceding the arrest.
In addition to Merritt’s actions at the bus station supporting his role as the “lookout” for this transaction and the phone calls linking him to the other individuals involved in the drug transaction, police recovered evidence supporting the jury’s finding that Merritt possessed and was directly involved in the transportation and distribution of illegal drugs. A plastic baggie corner containing drug residue was found on the ground next to the front passenger’s door of the vehicle where Merritt was sitting, and its location and condition were consistent with having recently fallen out of the front passenger’s side of the vehicle. Within the vehicle, police recovered a drug notebook containing notes regarding the subject drug transaction specifically identifying the transaction as “GMNY 1000,” which the jury could reasonably infer referred to Glen Merritt, New York, and the quantity of ecstasy pills, of which 998 were recovered by police. With this notebook were four bus tickets for transportation between Norfolk and New York and receipts dated August 5 for a large number of baggies. In addition, the police recovered a Western Union receipt showing a payment of $125 from Bolton to Merritt that he received in New York on August 2. According to expert testimony, Western Union is commonly used in the drug industry for payments for services and the $125 was likely sent to Merritt for an additional night’s stay in New York and/or his transportation back to Virginia.10 Two cell phones *741were recovered from Merritt further supporting his involvement in the transaction since the use of two cell phones is common in the narcotics trade. Further, one of Merritt’s cell phone numbers was identified as “G-money” in Bolton’s cell phone.
From this evidence, the jury could reasonably infer Merritt was in New York days before the arrest to arrange the purchase of 1,000 ecstasy pills and served as a “lookout” as the drugs were transported for the purpose of further distribution. Thus, I would find the evidence was sufficient to prove Merritt conspired with his companions to possess and transport the drugs with intent to distribute them and was “present lending countenance, or otherwise aiding” the possession of the drugs with intent to distribute and the transportation of the drugs into Virginia with intent to distribute. Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 451, 482, 619 S.E.2d 16, 32-33 (2005). See Foster v. Commonwealth, 179 Va. 96, 99, 18 S.E.2d 314, 315-16 (1942) (“Every person who is present at the commission of a [crime], encouraging or inciting the same by words, gestures, looks, or signs, or who in any way, or by any means, countenances or approves the same is, in law, assumed to be an aider and abettor, and is liable as principal.”); Dunn v. Commonwealth, 52 Va.App. 611, 665 S.E.2d 868 (2008).11
Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s judgment.

. Merritt's explanation to police that Bolton told him to get out of the vehicle and walk to the bus upon their arrival at the bus station, without giving him any reason for doing so, was understandably rejected by the jury as not credible.

. Although the majority points out these items were found in the backseat where Bolton had been sitting, in my view their location in the *741vehicle is not significant. What is significant, however, is that the items, which were clearly evidence of the drug transaction, were found together and included not only a Western Union receipt for money sent to Merritt in New York, but a description of the transaction as "GMNY,” which the jury could infer referred to Glen Merritt. Thus, these references to Merritt, found among the other items, linked Merritt to the transaction.

. Although the majority states the evidence does not show Merritt was "bigger physically” or that "he was armed,” Merritt never made his physical build an issue at trial and the jury was in the best position to observe Merritt and judge whether his stature was consistent with the role of a “lookout” or "muscle” in the transaction. Furthermore, the police found a handgun in the console next to where Merritt was sitting and a magazine in the glove compartment. Therefore, the jury could *742reasonably infer Merritt had access to a firearm and, as the Commonwealth argued, could have been carrying the gun in the parking lot before he returned to the vehicle.