Emerson v. Commonwealth

Citations: 597 S.E.2d 242; 43 Va. App. 263; 2004 Va. App. LEXIS 274Docket: 0471031

Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia; June 8, 2004; Virginia; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jason Jermaine Emerson was convicted in a bench trial for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, violating Virginia Code § 18.2-248. Emerson appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement during custodial interrogation regarding ownership of a pair of shorts containing cocaine, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. 

The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the conviction, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. On May 9, 2002, police executed a search warrant at Emerson's apartment, where he was the sole occupant. After being handcuffed and seated outside, Emerson requested specific clothing items, including a pair of jean shorts located on the floor. Detective Pederson retrieved these shorts and searched them according to department policy, discovering a video-store card, a cigarette box, and U.S. currency inside the pockets. Corporal Mazzio, who was outside with Emerson, did not personally search the shorts and was unaware of the incriminating items found by Pederson until later. The court found no error in the trial court's rulings and upheld the conviction.

Mazzio provided clothing, including jean shorts, to Emerson, who identified them as his. Inside the shorts, Detective Pederson found a Newport cigarette box containing seven plastic bags of what was later confirmed to be 4.01 grams of cocaine and 4.2 grams of marijuana. Additionally, $345 in cash was found in the shorts, comprising fourteen $20 bills, six $10 bills, and one $5 bill. A search of Emerson's apartment revealed a shoebox with items linked to him, including vehicle registration, bank envelopes, thirty .38-caliber bullets, twenty-seven 9-millimeter bullets, a gun holster, and a small electronic scale. The police also found a glass pipe with residue and marijuana seeds throughout the apartment, with no other smoking devices present.

Emerson moved to suppress his identification of the shorts, claiming a violation of his Miranda rights since he was in custody at the time of questioning. The Commonwealth contended that the question posed by Mazzio was not an interrogation. The trial court denied the motion, determining that the question did not necessitate Miranda warnings despite Emerson being in custody.

During the trial, Detective Pederson, an expert in narcotics, testified about the significance of the findings. She noted that the glass pipe was used for marijuana and that the cocaine had a street value of at least $400. She explained that the cash denominations were typical for drug sales, indicating Emerson's involvement in distribution rather than personal use. Pederson further opined that the presence of weapons, ammunition, and a scale aligned with drug dealing activities, and that Emerson's possession of these items was inconsistent with personal cocaine use. Despite Emerson’s claim of insufficient evidence for intent to distribute, the trial court found the evidence adequate and convicted him of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of Code 18.2-248, leading to the appeal.

Emerson argues that his statement to Corporal Mazzio regarding the ownership of jean shorts, which contained illegal drugs, was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights, as he was not informed of these rights prior to questioning. He claims that this acknowledgment was critical to establishing his possession of the drugs and contends that Mazzio's inquiry was intended to elicit an incriminating response, qualifying as custodial interrogation. The appellate court emphasizes that the burden is on Emerson to prove reversible error in the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, referencing relevant case law. The court considers evidence from both the suppression hearing and trial, favoring the Commonwealth in its interpretations. It acknowledges that Emerson was in custody and not given Miranda warnings, which typically necessitates suppression of such statements. The key issue is whether Emerson was subjected to interrogation when he admitted ownership of the shorts. The term "interrogation" includes both direct questioning and its functional equivalent, defined as police actions likely to elicit an incriminating response. The appellate court must determine if a reasonable observer would interpret Mazzio’s actions as designed to provoke such a response.

An objective observer would regard the police's actions as non-interrogative if they do not aim to elicit incriminating information. In this case, Corporal Mazzio’s inquiries regarding Emerson's clothing were solely to facilitate Emerson getting dressed, not to extract incriminating responses. Mazzio's actions complied with department policy, as he was tasked to keep Emerson outside while a search was conducted. Emerson was only in boxer shorts, and Mazzio asked him what clothing he wanted, which included jean shorts found by Detective Pederson. Pederson searched the shorts without informing Mazzio about the contents, which included a video-store card, a cigarette box, and money. Mazzio, unaware of the search findings, merely confirmed with Emerson that the shorts were the ones he desired. The legitimacy of Mazzio's purpose—allowing Emerson to dress—ensured that the encounter did not constitute an interrogation under Miranda, as he made no further attempts to gather information about the clothing or the ongoing search for illegal items.

The questioning conducted by Corporal Mazzio was found to lack intention to elicit an incriminating response from Emerson, as there was no evidence suggesting such design. Mazzio's actions were deemed standard for police conduct in a custody situation, particularly since Emerson was not fully clothed. Therefore, Mazzio's words and actions did not constitute "interrogation" under Miranda, and the trial court correctly denied Emerson's motion to suppress the evidence obtained.

Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence for Emerson's conviction for intent to distribute cocaine, the court reviewed the evidence in favor of the Commonwealth, affirming that circumstantial evidence can adequately demonstrate intent when direct proof is unattainable. The Commonwealth is required to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence derived from the evidence, not those imagined by the defendant. The court emphasized that a reasonable fact finder could have dismissed Emerson's theories and found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, reinforcing that circumstantial evidence must be considered collectively, not in isolation.

The court upheld the conviction of Emerson for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, concluding that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish this intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Key factors included Emerson’s possession of 4.01 grams of cocaine packaged in multiple small bags, $345 in cash with specific denominations indicating sales, and the presence of a small electronic scale. Additionally, the presence of ammunition and a gun holster suggested potential involvement in drug distribution. Although Emerson had marijuana and paraphernalia for smoking it, there were no devices for consuming cocaine found in his apartment. The Commonwealth's narcotics expert testified that the amount of cocaine and the way it was packaged were inconsistent with personal use, reinforcing the conclusion that Emerson intended to distribute the drug. The court determined that the absence of evidence supporting personal use, alongside the expert testimony and circumstantial evidence, led to the reasonable conclusion of intent to distribute.