Com. v. Byrd, G.
3742 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 25, 2017Background
- In July 2015 police conducted a narcotics investigation at 1712 N. Hollywood St. after controlled buys attributed to another individual (Wilcombe) produced probable cause for a search warrant.
- Officers executed the warrant on July 23, 2015; they knocked repeatedly, heard movement, breached the bedroom door, and found Gilbert Byrd naked in bed and alone.
- Within arm’s reach of Byrd in a small bedroom they found a clear sandwich bag containing two smaller baggies of marijuana, three twisted small marijuana bags, a digital scale, a box of unused sandwich baggies, and $188 cash.
- Byrd was charged with Possession With Intent to Deliver (PWID) and Conspiracy to Commit PWID; a bench trial convicted Byrd of PWID and acquitted him of Conspiracy.
- Trial court sentenced Byrd to two years probation; post-sentence motions were denied and Byrd appealed, raising sufficiency and weight-of-the-evidence claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove constructive possession | Commonwealth: items found in plain view within arm’s reach in Byrd’s bedroom, Byrd alone and naked, clothing in room, and his furtive non‑response link him to the contraband | Byrd: no drugs found on his person and no direct evidence tying him to the property or contraband; thus no constructive possession | Held: Sufficient — totality (plain view, proximity, alone/naked in bed, clothing, failure to respond) supported constructive possession (conviction affirmed) |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove intent to deliver | Commonwealth: packaging (multiple baggies), digital scale, unused baggies, and cash support an inference of intent to deliver | Byrd: absence of expert testimony and small quantity indicate personal use, not intent to deliver | Held: Sufficient — packaging, scale, unused baggies, and cash allowed reasonable inference of intent to deliver (conviction affirmed) |
| Weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: factfinder’s credibility determinations are entitled to deference and evidence was not so tenuous to shock the conscience | Byrd: verdict based on conjecture; insufficient linkage to Wilcombe’s sales and no proof he lived at the residence undermines verdict | Held: Denied — trial court’s credibility findings and the evidence did not shock the conscience; appellate court will not reweigh evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bricker, 882 A.2d 1008 (Pa. Super. 2005) (constructive possession and circumstantial proof framework for PWID)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 26 A.3d 1078 (Pa. 2011) (definition of constructive possession as conscious dominion)
- Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (factors to infer intent to deliver: packaging, paraphernalia, cash, quantity)
- Commonwealth v. Kirkland, 831 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. 2003) (plain‑view and proximity support constructive possession)
- Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard and deference in reviewing weight‑of‑the‑evidence claims)