”) (citations omitted); see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 735, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (“Normally, although perhaps not in every case, the defendant must make a specific showing of prejudice to satisfy the ‘affecting substantial rights’ prong of Rule 52(b).”). The error in this case had an obviously prejudicial effect on the outcome of appellant’s trial. The DEA chemist’s report was the main, if indeed not the only, proof offered by the prosecution that the zi-plocks distributed by appellant contained a measurable amount of a mixture containing cocaine — an essential element of the drug distribution offense with which appellant was charged. See Hicks v. United States, 697 A.2d 805, 807 (D.C.1997); D.C.Code § 48-902.06(1)(D) (2001); cf. Bernard v. United States, 575 A.2d 1191, 1194-95 (D.C.1990) (<HOLDING>). This is enough to establish that the
holding that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction holding circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish that defendant sold a usable amount of marijuana holding that circumstantial evidence alone may establish discriminatory intent holding conviction for possession that rests only on defendants cooccupancy of apartment where marijuana was sold and on defendants intimate relationship with a cooccupant who sold marijuana is not supported by sufficient evidence holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent