Court Opinion

ID: 9852840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:37:40.850799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:35.553306
License: Public Domain

FITZPATRICK,
Chief Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, which holds that sufficient evidence proved that appellant possessed heroin.
It is well established that “ownership or occupancy of the premises where the drug is found does not create a presumption of possession.” Walton v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 422, 426, 497 S.E.2d 869, 872 (1998) (citing Code § 18.2-250.1(A); Garland v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 182, 184, 300 S.E.2d 783, 784 (1983)). We have previously held that recently dated, opened mail addressed to a defendant and found in his vehicle is insufficient, even combined with ownership thereof, to es*290tablish that he was present when the drugs were present. See Burchette v. Commonwealth, 15 Va.App. 432, 437-38, 425 S.E.2d 81, 85 (1992) (evidence that Burchette owned a vehicle which he walked past and that his wallet containing his operator’s license and a telephone bill addressed to Burchette were found in the vehicle was insufficient to convict him of possession of drugs found in plain sight in the vehicle). At best, evidence of recently dated bills proves only that appellant probably placed the bill in the apartment. See id.
The majority finds that because the heroin contained in the gift bag on the kitchen floor was in plain view, appellant must have been aware of it. However, the Commonwealth failed to show “when appellant may have used or occupied the [apartment] or when or for how long the drugs” had been in the apartment. Burchette, 15 Va.App. at 435-36, 425 S.E.2d at 84. The Commonwealth’s evidence “simply does not exclude the very real possibility that other members of [appellant’s] family or someone other than [appellant] used or had access to the [apartment] and had left the drugs there unbeknownst to him.” Id. at 438, 425 S.E.2d at 85.
At most, the evidence establishes that appellant rented the apartment where the heroin was found and was present in the apartment at some time in the past. The evidence does not establish that appellant was present in the apartment at the same time as the drugs were in plain view in the apartment. Thus, the evidence in this case, at best, creates a mere suspicion or possibility that appellant possessed the heroin. The circumstances were not such that one could reasonably infer, to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that appellant knew of the presence, nature and character of the heroin that was found in the apartment he rented and that it was subject to his domain and control. See Garland, 225 Va. at 184, 300 S.E.2d at 784. Therefore, I would reverse and dismiss appellant’s conviction.