The State, Respondent v. Yukoto Eugene Cherry, Petitioner

Summary

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to submit the charge of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute to the jury because the quantity and packaging of the drugs, cash denominations, absence of paraphernalia, and location supported an inference of intent to distribute. It also held that, when a case relies in whole or in part on circumstantial evidence, the recommended instruction emphasizing equal treatment of direct and circumstantial evidence, together with a proper reasonable-doubt instruction, is the sole permissible circumstantial-evidence charge; the traditional reasonable-hypothesis charge is no longer required. The judgment was affirmed in result only. Chief Justice Toal, joined by Acting Justice Reginald I. Lloyd, dissented, arguing that the traditional charge should remain available because it gives jurors a necessary framework for evaluating circumstantial evidence.