PEOPLE OF MI V MARVIN D WOOD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 20, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 237009
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-007151
MARVIN D. WOOD,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Wilder and Cooper, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of his right his jury trial conviction of possession with intent to
deliver more than 650 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(i). Defendant was sentenced to
twenty to forty years in prison. We affirm.
Defendant argues that due to a defect in the verdict form his conviction should be
reduced from possession with intent to deliver over 650 grams of cocaine to possession of less
than fifty grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7403(2)(iv). We disagree. Because defendant failed to
properly preserve this issue for appeal, our review is limited to plain error affecting his
substantial rights. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).
When a defendant claims that a verdict is void for uncertainty, this Court reviews the
pleadings, the trial court’s charge, and the entire record, under a standard of “clear deducibility.”
People v Rand, 397 Mich 638, 643; 247 NW2d 508 (1976); People v Miller, 143 Mich App 274,
276; 372 NW2d 329 (1985). If the jury’s intent can be clearly deduced by reference to the
record, the verdict is not void as uncertain. Rand, supra at 643.
The verdict form in this case listed three possible verdicts: not guilty, guilty of possession
with intent to deliver cocaine, and possession of cocaine. Significantly, we note that the amount
of cocaine was never disputed in this case. Rather, defendant’s defense was that he did not
possess the cocaine. Moreover, during closing arguments the prosecutor and defense counsel
both stated that the amount of cocaine at issue was over 650 grams. A further review of the
record also shows that the trial court clearly instructed the jury that the charge against defendant
was possession with intent to deliver over 650 grams of cocaine. After the jury rendered its
verdict, the trial court asked the foreman and the other jurors to specify whether their verdict was
guilty of possession with intent to deliver over 650 grams of cocaine. Each juror answered in the
-1-
affirmative. Thus, it is clear from the record that the jury intended to convict defendant of
possession with intent to deliver over 650 grams of cocaine. See Rand, supra at 643.
Defendant next asserts that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that he either possessed the cocaine or intended to deliver it. We disagree. In reviewing a
sufficiency of the evidence claim, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of
the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Johnson, 460 Mich 720, 723; 597
NW2d 73 (1999). However, we will not interfere with the jury’s role of determining the weight
of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 514-515; 489
NW2d 748 (1992), mod 441 Mich 1201 (1992). “[C]ircumstantial evidence and reasonable
inferences arising from that evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a
crime.” People v Lee, 243 Mich App 163, 167-168; 622 NW2d 71 (2000).
A conviction for possession with intent to deliver over 650 grams of cocaine requires
proof beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the recovered substance is cocaine; (2) the cocaine is in
a mixture weighing more than 650 grams; (3) defendant was not authorized to possess the
substance; and (4) defendant knowingly possessed the cocaine with the intent to deliver. See
Wolfe, supra at 516-517. “Possession may be either actual or constructive, and may be joint as
well as exclusive.” People v Fetterley, 229 Mich App 511, 515; 583 NW2d 199 (1998).
Whether the defendant had dominion or control over the controlled substance is the essential
issue. Id. Similarly, actual delivery is not required to prove intent to deliver. Wolfe, supra at
524. “Intent to deliver can be inferred from the quantity of the controlled substance in the
defendant’s possession and from the way in which the controlled substance is packaged.”
Fetterley, supra at 518.
In the instant case, the cocaine was discovered in defendant’s apartment and a large
quantity was hidden in the dishwasher. There was testimony that defendant persistently
attempted to halt the search of his apartment before the cocaine was discovered in his dishwasher
by telling police that they already found all his drugs. Another police officer testified that
defendant verbally admitted during questioning that the drugs were his and that he sold one or
two kilograms of cocaine a week. The amount of cocaine discovered also indicated an intent to
sell. A detective testified that kilograms of cocaine are for drug dealers and not individual users.
Moreover, several tools used by drug dealers (a scale, sandwich baggies, and a cutting agent)
were uncovered during the search of defendant’s apartment. Viewing the above evidence in a
light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that there was sufficient evidence to establish
that defendant possessed and intended to deliver the cocaine found in his apartment.
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
-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.
