Drug Crimes Case Study
Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove possession with intent to distribute (PWID) rather than simple possession.
The court affirmed the PWID conviction, finding that the quantity of drugs, the presence of packaging materials, scales, and cash, and the absence of drug paraphernalia for personal use were sufficient to prove intent to distribute beyond a reasonable doubt.
The distinction between simple possession and PWID is critical — PWID carries dramatically higher penalties. The prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence of intent, including drug quantity, packaging, scales, and cash. D.J. Rivera challenges the sufficiency of this circumstantial evidence and works to have PWID charges reduced to simple possession where the evidence of intent is weak.
This case involves § 18.2-248 of the Virginia Code. For a full analysis of how this statute applies to your case, consult with D.J. Rivera.
D.J. Rivera applies the lessons of cases like this one to defend clients throughout Richmond and Northern Virginia. Free consultation available 24/7.
Get Your Free Consultation