Com. v. Davis, O.
Com. v. Davis, O. No. 1442 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 1, 2017Background
- On Dec. 22, 2014, Philadelphia officers pursued a blue minivan; it crashed and the driver (Davis) fled on foot. Officers observed Davis holding a small black handgun as he ran.
- Davis tossed a gun over a fence, climbed a barbed-wire fence (cutting his hands), picked up a gun from the ground near the fence, and continued fleeing; officers later stopped and identified him nearby.
- No firearm was recovered by the officers during their initial search of the area or vehicle.
- Davis was charged with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (18 Pa.C.S. § 6105), firearms not to be carried without a license (18 Pa.C.S. § 6106), carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia (18 Pa.C.S. § 6108), and possession of a controlled substance.
- After a non-jury trial (Feb. 5, 2016) the court convicted Davis of the firearm offenses; he was sentenced on April 26, 2016. Davis appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence regarding firearm length and possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Davis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether evidence established firearm barrel/overall length element for §§ 6106/6108 | Witness descriptions of a "small handgun" permitted the fact‑finder to infer the firearm met statutory length definitions | Because no gun was recovered, the Commonwealth could not prove the barrel or overall length element | Court held witness descriptions sufficed to infer a barrel length under 15 inches (and thus satisfied the statutory definition) |
| Sufficiency: whether Davis possessed the firearm for § 6105 (prohibited person) | Officer testimony that Davis held, discarded, then picked up a handgun supported actual possession | No recovered weapon and alleged witness conflicts mean possession was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt | Court held officers’ credible testimony established actual possession; constructive-possession analysis unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sauers, 159 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. 2013) (definition and proof of constructive possession)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 817 A.2d 1153 (Pa. Super. 2003) (victim/officer testimony alone can suffice to prove possession of a firearm)