PEOPLE OF MI V WAYLI J MADISON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 22, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 276996
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 06-005029-02
WAYLI J. MADISON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Owens and Schuette, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of possession with intent to deliver less
than 50 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv). Defendant was sentenced to nine months in
jail and four years’ probation. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm. We decide this case
without oral argument under MCR 7.214(E).
I. FACTS
On March 30, 2006, narcotics enforcement supervisor Sergeant Andrew White was
conducting surveillance of a house at Harmon and Oakland Streets in Detroit. White, watching
through binoculars, observed two suspected narcotic transactions, one made by co-defendant
Brent Montgomery and the other by defendant. In the second transaction, White observed a
yellow checker cab pull up to the location and the passenger get out of the car. The passenger
spoke with defendant, who took money, retrieved an object from the south side of the street, and
gave the retrieved object to the passenger. White then gave a description of defendants to his
team, who were ordered on scene to investigate and arrest defendants. Before the team arrived, a
Wayne County Sheriff drove down Oakland. Seeing the sheriff, defendants went into the house
and came back out once the sheriff had passed. Once the team arrived, White, through his radio,
directed Officer Michael Bryant to the location where defendants retrieved the objects; Bryant
located a sandwich bag with 25 individual Ziploc sandwich bags filled with either cocaine or
crack cocaine there.
Defendant is the CEO and owner of a music label that promotes eight different artists.
On March 30, 2006, defendant said he was “just visiting” the Harmon Street house, which was
owned by a family friend. Defendant was speaking with another guest at the house when the raid
vans approached. Both vans rode past the scene, but the first van returned within a minute. The
first van stopped and the officers arrested a young man working on his car. The second van
-1-
returned ten minutes later and pulled up to where defendant and the other guest were standing.
The officers got out of the second van, ordered defendant to approach, searched and arrested
him. When defendant was arrested, he had $3 on his person. Defendant maintains he is not
engaged in any illegal activities, that he and Montgomery never sold anybody drugs, and they are
not in the drug trade together. Defendant denies selling drugs to a person who approached the
corner of Oakland and Harmon Streets in a taxi.
Defendant argues that, because he was not apprehended at the location of the narcotics,
there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had the power and intention to exercise dominion
over the narcotics. We disagree.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. People v
Osantowski, 274 Mich App 593, 612-613; 736 NW2d 289 (2007). “In reviewing the sufficiency
of the evidence in a criminal case, this Court must review the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecutor and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found that
the essential elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Harmon,
248 Mich App 522, 524; 640 NW2d 314 (2001).
III. ANALYSIS
In Michigan, to be convicted of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance
less than 50 grams, the prosecution must prove that the defendant possessed the specific intent to
deliver the statutory minimum as charged to another person. People v Hunter, 466 Mich 1, 6-7;
643 NW2d 218 (2002). A defendant need not have actual physical possession of a controlled
substance to be guilty of possessing it. Possession may be either actual or constructive. People v
Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 520-521; 489 NW2d 748, amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992). “Constructive
possession exists when the totality of the circumstances indicates a sufficient nexus between
defendant and the contraband.” People v Johnson, 466 Mich 491, 500; 647 NW2d 480 (2002).
Here, a police officer witnessed defendant conduct a narcotics transaction with the
passenger of a taxicab, where defendant took money, retrieved narcotics from an empty field,
and gave the narcotics to the passenger. An officer found the narcotics at the location where
defendant retrieved his stash. Considering this testimony in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find defendant guilty of possession with intent to deliver
less than 50 grams of cocaine, and the verdict is supported by the evidence.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Bill Schuette
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.