DISCLAIMER:

These summaries of case decisions are intended for informational purposes only. They are not intended to be interpretations of the law, nor do they encompass the subtleties of each case. Therefore, reference to the original text is indispensable.



Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Alex Steinberg's Summary of "Commonwealth v. Sepheus"

Commonwealth v. Sepheus 
82 Mass. App. Ct. 765 (2012)

The defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence at trial was not sufficient to support a finding that he intended to distribute three, separately wrapped rocks of crack cocaine that were found in his possession. The Appeals Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction.
            Possession with the intent to distribute cocaine has two basic elements: (1) knowingly possessing the drug and (2) intending to transfer it physically to another person. The defendant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on the possession element of the crime but he did challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of his intent to distribute. The Appeals Court ruled that the totality of the circumstances allowed a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the defendant was more likely a seller of crack cocaine than a buyer.
            Immediately prior to his arrest (for possession of crack cocaine packaged to sell), the defendant was observed standing in an area known for drug trafficking in a group that included an individual whom the arresting officer observed make a drug transaction. In addition, the unemployed defendant had an amount of cash in excess of $300 in his possession when he was arrested. The defendant also possessed no apparatus to ingest the drug. Wadlegger, an experienced narcotics investigator, testified as an expert at the trial that the totality of those circumstances led him to believe that the defendant was more likely a seller of cocaine than a buyer. As the fact finder, the trial judge was justified in using Wadlegger’s testimony to shape his ultimate decision.

The trial judge’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty was affirmed.

Written 7/18/2013