Takeaway
In short, this case shows that strong circumstantial evidence can support a drug-possession-with-intent-to-sell conviction, while incomplete preservation and an incomplete appellate record can prevent review of otherwise arguable trial and sentencing claims.
Police officers on routine patrol saw four men behind a rooming house. As the officers approached, one man ran behind the building. At the rear of the property, they found Thomas Lee Matthews kneeling beside an uncovered opening in the building’s foundation. A small packet of cocaine lay on the ground nearby, and a larger quantity was just inside the opening. The cocaine weighed 30.5 grams in total. Officers also found $974 on Matthews after his arrest.
Matthews co-owned the rooming-house property but did not live there or store possessions there. The rear parking lot and driveway were used by tenants and their visitors, and the open foundation area was unsecured and accessible to others.
A jury convicted Matthews of possessing cocaine with intent to sell. The trial court found him to be a persistent offender who had committed an especially aggravated offense and imposed a Range II sentence of nine years’ confinement and a $5,000 fine. After the court denied a new-trial motion, Matthews appealed.
Issue #1
Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Matthews possessed cocaine with intent to sell.
Holding
Yes. The evidence permitted a rational jury to find Matthews guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasoning
Appellate review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the State’s strongest legitimate light and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor, a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court does not reweigh evidence, reassess witness credibility, or substitute its own inferences for those of the jury.
Although Matthews framed his challenge partly as a claim that the verdict was against the weight or preponderance of the evidence, those formulations were improper because an appellate court may not weigh the evidence after a jury verdict approved by the trial judge. His general insufficiency claim also did not comply with appellate briefing requirements, but the court addressed it nonetheless.
The jury could infer possession and an intent to sell from the circumstances: Matthews was kneeling beside the foundation opening, cocaine was found immediately outside and inside that opening, the total amount was 30.5 grams, and Matthews possessed $974. The jury was entitled to credit the officers’ testimony and draw the inference that Matthews constructively possessed the drugs for sale rather than personal use.
Issue #2
Whether Matthews had a reasonable expectation of privacy that allowed him to challenge the seizure of cocaine from the parking area and the open foundation space.
Holding
No. Matthews lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in either area and therefore could not challenge the seizure.
Reasoning
Property ownership alone does not establish a Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy. Although Matthews co-owned the rooming-house property, he did not live there and the record did not show that he stored personal belongings there.
The drugs were found in areas open to others: a parking lot used by tenants and guests, and an unsecured opening beneath the house. Tenants, visitors, and strangers could access both locations. Society does not recognize a protected privacy interest in these common and exposed areas.
Because Matthews lacked standing to contest the officers’ presence in those areas and the seizure of the cocaine, the court did not need to decide whether the officers’ conduct was otherwise a reasonable search or seizure.
Issue #3
Whether the trial court should have granted Matthews’s motions for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s proof and at the close of all proof.
Holding
No. The first claim was waived when Matthews presented evidence, and the evidence at the close of all proof supported the conviction.
Reasoning
A defendant who introduces proof after the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s case waives review of that earlier ruling. Matthews presented evidence in support of his defense, so he could not challenge the denial of his first motion.
At the close of all the evidence, the proof was sufficient for a rational jury to find possession of cocaine with intent to sell. The trial court therefore properly denied the renewed motion for acquittal.
Issue #4
Whether the trial court improperly admitted a police officer’s testimony concerning the street value of cocaine.
Holding
No. The claim was not preserved on the ground raised on appeal, and the testimony was independently admissible as evidence of intent to sell.
Reasoning
At trial, defense counsel objected only that the street-value testimony was irrelevant. On appeal, Matthews instead argued that the evidence was unduly prejudicial and that the officer had not been qualified as an expert. A party may not change the ground of an objection after trial, so those new appellate arguments were waived.
Even on the merits, the street value of 30.5 grams of cocaine was relevant to whether Matthews possessed the drug for sale rather than personal use. Like the quantity of drugs, their market value supplies circumstantial evidence from which a jury may infer an intent to distribute.
The court cautioned that a witness must be qualified to testify about a controlled substance’s weight or value. It concluded that the officers in this case were qualified to provide that evidence.
Issue #5
Whether the prosecutor’s rebuttal comment on Matthews’s failure to call Roosevelt Key required reversal.
Holding
No appellate relief was available because the record did not contain the closing arguments.
Reasoning
The prosecutor argued that Roosevelt Key, who allegedly had been speaking with Matthews, could have testified that Matthews did not go to the foundation opening. Defense counsel objected that the prosecutor was improperly commenting on the defense’s failure to present a witness.
The official appellate record did not include the closing arguments. Although defense counsel later obtained a transcript of the prosecutor’s arguments and attached it to the appellate brief, material attached to a brief is not part of the record and cannot be considered by the appellate court.
The court emphasized that an appellant bears responsibility for preparing a complete record, including by designating closing arguments for transcription or later supplementing the record. Because Matthews did not do so, the court could not review this claim.
Issue #6
Whether the trial court improperly refused to permit Matthews to use a prosecution witness’s prior recorded testimony for impeachment.
Holding
The court declined to consider the claim because Matthews provided no supporting legal authority.
Reasoning
Matthews did not cite authority supporting his assertion that the prior recorded testimony should have been admitted for impeachment. Failure to support an appellate argument with citation and development waives the issue under the applicable appellate rules.
Issue #7
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to sentence Matthews under the Community Corrections Act of 1985.
Holding
The court could not review the claim because the appellate record omitted the sentencing-hearing transcript.
Reasoning
An appellant must provide a fair, accurate, and complete record of the proceedings relevant to the issues raised on appeal. Matthews did not include a transcript of the sentencing hearing, so the appellate court could not evaluate the trial court’s sentencing decision.
When the record is incomplete on an issue, the reviewing court presumes that the trial court’s ruling was correct. The court therefore left the sentence intact.