## Facts

- Police received information that marijuana was being sold from Gwendolyn Minor’s house and used an informant to buy marijuana from Minor at the house.
- Officers obtained and executed a search warrant at Minor’s residence.
- During the search, officers smelled marijuana and found partially smoked marijuana cigarettes in plain view in the living room.
- Officers found small plastic bags commonly used to package marijuana in a bedroom.
- In Minor’s purse, officers found 21 small bags of marijuana, loose marijuana, cigarette rolling papers, and packaging materials.
- Officers saw Anthony Kelly and Minor’s son in a bathroom attempting to flush a large bag containing another 21 small bags of marijuana down the toilet; officers retrieved the bag.
- Kelly and Minor were arrested and charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
- Kelly claimed he did not know Minor was selling marijuana and claimed he did not live at Minor’s house, producing a tax document listing a different address.
- The State presented evidence connecting Kelly to the residence, including mail addressed to Kelly at Minor’s address and men’s clothing in the house that would fit Kelly.
- A controlled-substance witness testified that the amount of marijuana and the packaging in many small bags were consistent with distribution rather than personal use and that an attempt to flush drugs suggests a plan to dispose of drugs if police enter.
- Minor testified that she owned the marijuana and that she packaged and sold marijuana without Kelly’s knowledge.
- The jury convicted Kelly of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and Kelly appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Kelly had the specific intent to distribute marijuana.

## Decision

- The court affirmed Kelly’s conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
- The court held that the jury could infer intent to distribute from the total circumstances, including the quantity of marijuana, its packaging in numerous small bags, the presence of packaging materials, and the attempt to flush a bag containing individually packaged marijuana.
- The court rejected Kelly’s reliance on Minor’s testimony that Kelly lacked knowledge, explaining that the jury was free to disbelieve that account in light of the physical evidence and witness testimony.
- The court noted that evidence linking Kelly to the residence (including mail and clothing) supported the jury’s conclusion that Kelly was not merely present but connected to the location where distribution-related items were found.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is sufficient under *Jackson v. Virginia* if, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Specific intent to distribute may be inferred from circumstantial evidence and evaluated based on the total circumstances, including factors such as:
  - the amount of the drug,
  - whether the drug is packaged in a form consistent with sales,
  - paraphernalia associated with packaging or sales,
  - testimony (including controlled-substance testimony) that the quantity or packaging is inconsistent with personal use,
  - conduct suggesting consciousness of guilt, such as attempts to conceal or destroy drugs.
- Credibility determinations are for the jury, and an appellate court generally will not reweigh witness testimony when the verdict is supported by evidence a rational juror could accept.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Fourth Circuit affirmed Kelly’s conviction because the evidence—two sets of 21 individually packaged bags of marijuana, packaging materials, testimony that the packaging and quantity indicated sales activity, and Kelly’s conduct in trying to flush packaged marijuana—allowed a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Kelly intended to distribute marijuana.


Louisiana v. Kelly, 800 So. 2d 978 (2001)