News & Insights
The Supreme Court of Virginia Reviews a Conviction for Possession of a Controlled Substance.
Commonwealth v. Wilkerson, Record No. 230914 (Va. Feb. 20, 2025)
During a search of a Norfolk City Jail cell block, Norfolk Sherriff’s Office Sergeant Hoggard found a little over a gram of powdered cocaine in inmate Jerome Wilkerson’s personal property bag. The bag sat on Wilkerson’s bunk. The cocaine was hidden inside a toilet paper roll in the bag. At the time of the search, there were about 30-40 inmates in the searched cell block, which contained an open day room, plus twelve separate “huts” that could be locked down independently. Each hut contained twelve bunks. When questioned, Wilkerson acknowledged owning the bag but denied knowing about the cocaine. Significantly, he told the officer: “F**k no. Ain’t no one goes into [] my bag. I watch my bag. They know better. I check my bag every 15 minutes.”
At a bench trial, Sergeant Hoggard testified that he had seen Wilkerson sleeping and relaxing in his hut before the search. Wilkerson appeared to be the only person using his bunk. Sergeant Hoggard also testified that inmates could keep property bags in cell blocks but had to leave them when attending court, meeting attorneys, or receiving medical care. The hut doors were primarily kept open except during lockdowns, and anyone in the cell block would have access to any of the huts.
Wilkerson was convicted of possessing a controlled substance. In response to Wilkerson’s motion to strike, the court stated, “I think but for the statement to Sergeant Hoggard, you might have something, but I think the statement to Sergeant Hoggard makes the case.”
Wilkerson appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the conviction. It felt that the trial court’s reliance on Wilkerson’s statement to Sergeant Hoggard was “problematic” because the statement was not a confession and could not prove that Wilkerson knowingly possessed the cocaine without more. The Court of Appeals concluded that “Wilkerson’s admission of occupancy and ownership of a jail bunk and property bag accessible to the general jail population, without more, was insufficient to show conscious knowledge of the presence, nature, and character of the cocaine,” and thus “the evidence was insufficient to prove Wilkerson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” It reversed the conviction, so the Commonwealth appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the circuit court’s judgment. It determined that a reasonable factfinder could have rejected Wilkerson’s hypothesis that someone else had placed the drugs in his bag. Wilkerson claimed ownership of the bag. He stated that he vigilantly monitored the bag, and there was no evidence that anyone else had accessed his bag. Further, rather than being hastily thrown in the bag, the cocaine was carefully wrapped in a plastic bag and concealed inside the toilet paper roll. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that Wilkerson knew the cocaine was in his bag, and that it was subject to his control.