Kamonte J. Lesher v. United States

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed Kamonte Lesher's convictions for attempted possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court held that the evidence supported constructive possession, the defendant's belief that the substance was marijuana, and the paraphernalia conviction, and that any error concerning testimony about a field test was harmless.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession because Lesher's personal documents in the room, the absence of another apparent occupant, the similarity between the substances found on his person and behind the radiator, and the nearby scale and bags supported findings that he knew of the substance and had the ability and intent to exercise dominion and control over it.
2. The government was not required to prove that the substance Lesher attempted to possess actually was a controlled substance; it was sufficient to prove that he believed the substance was marijuana and intended to distribute it.
3. Any error in admitting the officer's field-test testimony without qualifying him as an expert, or in admitting evidence tending to show that the substance actually was marijuana, was harmless.
4. A conviction under D.C. Code § 48-1103(a)(1) does not require proof that an actual controlled substance was present or that the paraphernalia was used with an actual controlled substance.

Questions Presented

1. Whether sufficient evidence established that Lesher constructively possessed the marijuana-like substance found behind the radiator.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported attempted possession with intent to distribute when the government did not prove that the substance actually was marijuana or another controlled substance.
3. Whether the trial court reversibly erred by admitting testimony concerning a police field test without first qualifying the officer as an expert.
4. Whether sufficient evidence supported the possession-of-drug-paraphernalia conviction when the government did not prove that an actual controlled substance was present.

Disposition

affirmed