## Facts

- The Commonwealth of Virginia prosecuted Ruth Ellen Wells for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
- Police arrested Wells at a friend’s apartment where Wells was a regular visitor.
- Wells admitted she possessed 4.2 ounces of marijuana, contained in 70 small packages, with an estimated value of about $700.
- Police did not find unusual amounts of money on Wells or in the apartment.
- Police did not find drug paraphernalia in Wells’s possession or in the apartment.
- Wells’s friend testified she did not know the marijuana was in the apartment.
- A police officer testified that the packaging was consistent with distribution, but also acknowledged that the quantity was not totally inconsistent with personal use over a period of time.
- A jury convicted Wells of possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
- On appeal, Wells argued the prosecution failed to prove she intended to distribute the marijuana; the Commonwealth relied on *Colbert v. Commonwealth* (1978) in response.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wells intended to distribute marijuana, rather than possess it for personal use.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia held the evidence was insufficient to prove intent to distribute.
- The court concluded that the Commonwealth’s proof (quantity and packaging) did not exclude a reasonable hypothesis that Wells possessed the marijuana for personal use over time, particularly given the absence of cash, paraphernalia, or other distribution indicia.
- The court distinguished the Commonwealth’s reliance on *Colbert* because *Colbert* involved additional circumstances supporting an inference of distribution beyond mere possession and packaging.
- Disposition: the conviction for possession with intent to distribute was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Intent to distribute a controlled substance may be proven by circumstantial evidence, including quantity, packaging, cash, paraphernalia, and other conduct consistent with sales.
- Quantity and packaging, standing alone, may be insufficient where the surrounding circumstances do not support an inference of distribution and the evidence remains reasonably consistent with personal use.
- When the Commonwealth relies on circumstantial evidence to prove intent, the evidence must be sufficient to exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence on the element of distribution intent.

## Conclusion

*Wells v. Commonwealth* holds that, although multiple small packages and a measurable quantity of marijuana can suggest distribution, the Commonwealth must present evidence strong enough to show intent to distribute beyond a reasonable doubt; where the proof lacks other common markers of sales activity and remains reasonably consistent with personal use, a conviction for possession with intent to distribute cannot stand.


Wells v. Commonwealth, 347 S.E.2d 139 (1986)