Com. v. Browne, E.
Com. v. Browne, E. No. 1665 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 22, 2017Background
- At ~3:15 a.m., police responded to a report of a man passing counterfeit $100 bills at a Wawa; witnesses described a black male in a green Ninja Turtle shirt leaving in a white Dodge Charger.
- Officers later located a white Dodge Charger; Corporal Reilly saw Browne (passenger) wearing a green Ninja Turtle shirt and observed Browne hand counterfeit bills to the driver, who then gave them to the officer.
- Officer Tancredi smelled marijuana on the vehicle and on Browne, and found a bag of marijuana in the center console.
- A loaded .22 Ruger revolver was recovered under the front passenger seat (not owned or registered to Browne), within arm’s reach of Browne.
- Browne was convicted after a stipulated nonjury trial of possession of a small amount of marijuana, carrying a firearm without a license, and criminal attempt–theft by deception; he appealed challenging the sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession of the firearm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Browne constructively possessed the firearm | Circumstantial proof: Browne matched suspect description, was found with counterfeit bills he handed to driver, smelled of marijuana, marijuana found in car, and the loaded gun was directly under his seat within arm’s reach | Mere proximity and presence in the vehicle are insufficient; Commonwealth must prove conscious dominion and intent to control the gun (relies on Juliano, Duffy, Boatwright) | The court held the evidence sufficient: totality of circumstances supported inference Browne had power and intent to control the firearm, affirming the conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. 2013) (constructive possession defined as conscious dominion; may be established by totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Bentley, 419 A.2d 85 (Pa. Super. 1980) (possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Juliano, 490 A.2d 891 (Pa. Super. 1985) (proximity alone insufficient where contraband was in car before defendant entered)
- Commonwealth v. Duffy, 340 A.2d 869 (Pa. Super. 1975) (insufficient proof of knowledge and intent when firearm was far under seat and no other incriminating conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Boatwright, 453 A.2d 1058 (Pa. Super. 1982) (mere presence and ambiguous movement in vehicle insufficient for constructive possession)
- Commonwealth v. Kirkland, 831 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. 2003) (intent to exercise control may be inferred from circumstances)