Sufficient evidence to convict for drug possession

There was sufficient evidence to show appellant constructively possessed cocaine found in the truck he was driving.

Discussion

“The Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that Turner constructively possessed the cocaine.

“Turner was in the process of purchasing the truck and had been driving it. In the hours before the incident, Turner drove the truck multiple times, and when approached by Deputy Wichowski [who was investigating an overdose case that took place inside a Wawa convenience store], he was in the driver’s seat.

“On several occasions, Turner made statements indicating that he had possession of the truck. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to prove that the cocaine was in Turner’s dominion and control.

“From 1:00 a.m. to 3:15 a.m. on the morning of the incident, Turner drove the truck on at least three occasions: to Wawa, back to Ashlock’s house, and then back to Wawa.” Ashlock was the truck’s registered owner.

“During these trips, the black tray containing a white substance and a rolled-up bill with white residue was in plain view. Turner admitted to Deputy Wichowski that he used that same tray to ‘cut up’ his medication.

“This evidence is sufficient for the trial court to determine that Turner was aware of the presence of the cocaine. Additionally, the white powdery substance, in conjunction with the rolled-up bill with white residue, could reasonably lead a rational factfinder to conclude that the powder was an illicit substance, possibly cocaine.

“The evidence, therefore, was sufficient for the trial court to find that Turner was aware of the character of the substance. Although Turner denied at trial that he was aware of the cocaine or the rolled-up bill with white residue, a factfinder is ‘at liberty to discount [Turner]’s self-serving statements as little more than lying to “conceal his guilt,” and could treat such prevarications as “affirmative evidence of guilt.”’ …

“Turner also argues that the Commonwealth failed to exclude his reasonable hypothesis of innocence – that another person used cocaine in the vehicle before he drove to Wawa.

“To satisfy its burden of proof, the Commonwealth must exclude ‘every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that is, those “which flow from the evidence itself, and not from the imagination of defendant’s counsel.”’ …

“[T]he trial court found ‘incredible’ Turner’s testimony that Ashlock, or another person, used cocaine in the vehicle while Turner was asleep and then returned the vehicle before he awoke. Thus, the incriminating evidence was sufficient for the trial court to find Turner’s hypothesis of innocence unreasonable.”

Affirmed.

Turner v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0240-22-2 July 5, 2023. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Chaney). From the Circuit Court of Spotsylvania County (Ellis). (Alexander Raymond for appellant. Jason S. Miyares, Justin B. Hill for appellee. VLW 023-7-259, 6 pp.