Com. v. Adams, Q.
Com. v. Adams, Q. No. 2409 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 17, 2017Background
- On March 24–25, 2015, police conducting narcotics surveillance observed Quentin Adams engage in brief street exchanges with two men (John Fritz and Robert Krell); officers observed Adams give/receive small objects and money.
- Fritz and Krell were stopped shortly after their interactions; police recovered identically packaged heroin packets from each (stamped with a “one-way” symbol) by stipulation.
- Adams was later arrested; police recovered $404 from his person and, roughly 15–20 feet from his arrest site, a cigarette box containing four red-tinted Ziploc bags of crack cocaine.
- Officer Cooper had searched her patrol car at the start of her shift (no contraband found); Adams was the first person transported that day, and after removing him officers found nine chunks of cocaine and related paraphernalia in the patrol car.
- Adams was convicted after a bench trial of possession of cocaine and possession of heroin with intent to deliver (PWID) and sentenced to 11½ to 23 months’ incarceration plus three years’ probation; he appealed, raising only sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to support possession of crack cocaine (constructive possession) | Commonwealth: evidence that crack was not in car at shift start, Adams was first transported, and contraband found in rear of patrol car supports constructive possession | Adams: no proof he actually or constructively possessed the crack; mere proximity/possibility is speculative | Court: Affirmed — totality of circumstances justified inference of constructive possession |
| Sufficiency to support PWID (heroin) | Commonwealth: officer observed exchanges for money, identically packaged heroin recovered from buyers, Adams had $404; packaging indicated intent to sell | Adams: no direct proof buyers purchased from him; no nexus showing packets on property receipt; speculative inference | Court: Affirmed — observed money-for-object exchange, matching packets, cash on Adams, and stamped packaging supported constructive possession and intent to deliver |
| Nexus/chain-of-custody challenge to heroin evidence | Commonwealth: parties stipulated officers recovered packets from Fritz and Krell; testimony established recovery | Adams: argued no testimony about placement on property receipt so no proven chain | Court: Rejected — stipulation established recovery; record belied chain-of-custody complaint |
| Whether circumstantial evidence may sustain convictions | Commonwealth: circumstantial proof can establish elements beyond reasonable doubt | Adams: emphasized doubt and speculation | Court: Reiterated law that circumstantial evidence suffices; evidence not so weak as to preclude reasonable inference of guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruce v. Commonwealth, 916 A.2d 657 (Pa. Super. 2007) (circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction)
- Kinney v. Commonwealth, 863 A.2d 581 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate court does not reassess credibility)
- Bostick v. Commonwealth, 958 A.2d 543 (Pa. Super. 2008) (elements required for PWID)
- Aguado v. Commonwealth, 760 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2000) (factors to infer intent to deliver: packaging, form, defendant’s behavior)
- Walker v. Commonwealth, 874 A.2d 667 (Pa. Super. 2005) (requirement to prove constructive possession when contraband not on person)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 48 A.3d 426 (Pa. Super. 2012) (constructive possession as conscious dominion; power to control plus intent)
- Bricker v. Commonwealth, 882 A.2d 1008 (Pa. Super. 2005) (circumstantial evidence reviewed same as direct evidence)
- Haskins v. Commonwealth, 677 A.2d 328 (Pa. Super. 1996) (contraband in area usually accessible only to defendant supports inference defendant placed or knew of it)
- Delvalle v. Commonwealth, 74 A.3d 1081 (Pa. Super. 2013) (distinctive stamping/marking of packets can indicate intent to sell)