## Facts

- In an early-morning undercover operation, a detective drove to Dartford Road in Essex, Maryland and was called over by a woman later identified as Benson.
- Benson and Nathaniel Cottman, Jr. approached the detective’s vehicle; Benson stood by the driver’s window while Cottman stood near the driver’s side mirror a few feet away.
- Benson asked whether the detective was a police officer; after the detective denied it, Cottman separately asked whether the detective was “sure” he was not police.
- Benson checked the detective’s breath after asking if he had been drinking and then proceeded with the transaction.
- Cottman then walked to the front of the vehicle and looked up and down the street while Benson sold the detective crack cocaine that she had concealed in her mouth.
- Police arrested Benson and Cottman shortly after the sale; no drugs or money were found on Cottman.
- On the morning of trial, defense counsel requested a continuance to secure a newly located “critical” witness; the request was denied after noting multiple prior postponements.
- The State’s case consisted of the detective’s testimony identifying Cottman and describing his questions and street-scanning conduct.
- The trial court denied a motion for judgment of acquittal and convicted Cottman of distribution of cocaine, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and possession of cocaine; the possession and conspiracy counts merged for sentencing.

## Issues

1. Whether the denial of a continuance requested on the morning of trial was an abuse of discretion.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for distribution of cocaine, possession of cocaine, and conspiracy to distribute cocaine where Cottman had no drugs or money and did not personally transfer cocaine.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the continuance denial was not an abuse of discretion given multiple prior postponements, lack of demonstrated diligence, and the absence of a concrete proffer of the witness’s expected material testimony or availability.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support:
  - distribution, on an aiding-and-abetting theory;
  - possession, on constructive possession and/or aiding-and-abetting theories; and
  - conspiracy, based on circumstantial proof of agreement inferred from coordinated conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Granting or denying a continuance is committed to the trial court’s discretion; reversal requires a showing of abuse of discretion.
- A party seeking a continuance to obtain a witness must show diligence and make a specific proffer that the testimony is competent, material, and likely to affect the outcome, and that the witness can be produced within a reasonable time.
- Mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to establish guilt; participation may be proven by circumstantial evidence showing association with and assistance to the criminal act.
- Aiding and abetting may be established by purposeful conduct that facilitates the offense, including screening a transaction from detection (e.g., acting as a lookout or checking for police).
- Possession of narcotics may be proven through constructive possession, including knowledge of the drug’s presence and illicit character plus the ability to exercise dominion or control, including joint control inferred from conduct during the transaction.
- Conspiracy does not require an express agreement; an agreement may be inferred from the parties’ coordinated actions in furtherance of the unlawful objective.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the trial court’s refusal to postpone trial and concluded that Cottman’s questioning of the undercover buyer about police status and his lookout behavior during the sale supported findings that he acted in concert with the seller, permitting convictions for distribution, possession, and conspiracy.


Cottman v. State, 886 A.2d 932 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2005)