213 Va. 52 (Va. 1972)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boyd v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Virginia

Jun 12, 1972

213 Va. 52 (Va. 1972)

Summary

holding that evidence of prior unrelated drug sales is inadmissible to prove knowledge of the presence or nature of drugs or the intent to possess or distribute them

Summary of this case from Lockhart v. Commonwealth

See 11 Summaries

Opinion

42736 Record No. 7894.

June 12, 1972

Present, Snead, C.J., I'Anson, Carrico, Harrison, Cochran and Harman, JJ.

Criminal Procedure — Evidence — Prior Criminal Conduct.

Prior sales of heroin were unrelated to sales covered by indictment. Evidence of such sales not admissible. Prejudicial effect outweighs probative value.

Error to a judgment of the Hustings Court of the City of Richmond. Hon. J. Randolph Tucker, Jr., judge presiding.

Reversed and remanded.

Michael Morchower, for plaintiff in error.

Burnett Miller, III, Assistant Attorney General (Andrew P. Miller, Attorney General, on brief), for defendant in error.

Per Curiam.

Anthony Boyd was indicted for possession and distribution of heroin. The offense occurred on October 26, 1970. A jury found Boyd guilty as charged in the indictment and fixed his punishment at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of 15 years. Judgment was entered in accordance with the jury's verdict. We granted Boyd a writ of error.

The issue before us is whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of two prior sales of heroin.

Officer M. W. Branscome of the Richmond City Police Department testified that Boyd sold him two capsules containing heroin on October 26, 1970. Over defendant's objection, Branscome was permitted to testify that he witnessed two previous sales of heroin by Boyd. These sales took place a few days before October 26, 1970.

The trial court instructed the jury that the evidence of the commission of prior offenses may not be considered as evidence of guilt of the offense charged, but "may be considered by the jury as bearing on the issue of whether the prior offenses constituted part of a general scheme, of which the crime charged is a part.

Generally, evidence of prior criminal conduct is not admissible except under well defined circumstances. Kirkpatrick v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 269, 176 S.E.2d 802 (1970). The prior sales of heroin were unrelated to the October 26 sale. Hence, the evidence concerning the prior sales does not fall within an exception to the general rule. Its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. Therefore, we hold that the evidence of prior sales was not admissible.

Reversed and remanded.

Summaries of

Boyd v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Virginia

Jun 12, 1972

213 Va. 52 (Va. 1972)

holding that evidence of prior unrelated drug sales is inadmissible to prove knowledge of the presence or nature of drugs or the intent to possess or distribute them

Summary of this case from Lockhart v. Commonwealth

reversing a conviction because the three heroin sales were not part of a general scheme

Summary of this case from Scott v. Commonwealth

In Boyd, the defendant was charged with possession and distribution of heroin after he sold two capsules of heroin to an undercover police officer.

Summary of this case from Payne v. Commonwealth

In Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 189 S.E.2d 359 (1972) (per curiam), the Court held, in factual circumstances virtually identical to this case, that a sale of contraband several days prior to the sale for which Boyd was charged did not meet any of the Kirkpatrick exceptions.

Summary of this case from Hill v. Commonwealth

In Boyd, the defendant was charged with possession and distribution of heroin after he sold two capsules of the drug to an undercover police officer.

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Commonwealth

In Boyd, the trial court instructed the jury that prior sales "may be considered by the jury as bearing on the issue of whether the prior offenses constituted part of a general scheme, of which the crime charged is a part."

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Commonwealth

In Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 189 S.E.2d 359 (1972), the Court found the defendant's heroin sales two days prior to the heroin sale for which he was on trial were unrelated.

Summary of this case from Satterfield v. Commonwealth

In Boyd v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 52, 189 S.E.2d 359 (1972), the Supreme Court reversed Boyd's conviction for possession and distribution of heroin because of the admission during the trial of evidence of previous sales.

Summary of this case from Spence v. Commonwealth

In Boyd, the prosecution attempted to admit evidence of two prior heroin sales by the defendant in his trial for a subsequent heroin sale under the theory of "general scheme."

Summary of this case from Spence v. Commonwealth

In Boyd, the Court found the defendant's heroin sales two days prior to the heroin sale for which he was tried were unrelated.

Summary of this case from Satterfield v. Commonwealth

In Boyd, evidence of prior sales of heroin was not admissible in trial for another sale of heroin alleged to have occurred several days later.

Summary of this case from Godwin v. Commonwealth

Boyd v. Commonwealth

Summary

Opinion

Boyd v. Commonwealth

Boyd v. Commonwealth

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Boyd v. Commonwealth

Summary

Opinion

Boyd v. Commonwealth

Boyd v. Commonwealth

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citations

Citing Cases

Citations