Com. v. Doughlas, W.
697 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 5, 2016Background
- On March 7, 2015, Philadelphia police stopped a vehicle at night for a defective rear light; William Doughlas was the right-front passenger.
- Officer Visco observed Doughlas lean forward quickly toward the floor as the officer approached, then sit back up; Doughlas appeared nervous, breathing heavily, shaking, and stuttering.
- The officer removed Doughlas from the vehicle, did a pat-down, placed him in the squad car, and then shone a flashlight under the passenger seat, where he saw a loaded semiautomatic handgun.
- Neither Doughlas nor the driver were listed as authorized users on the rental agreement for the vehicle; Doughlas had no permit and was a felon ineligible to possess firearms (stipulated).
- Doughlas moved to suppress the evidence (denied), was convicted after a bench trial of 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105, 6106, and 6108, and sentenced to 3–7 years’ incarceration for the § 6105 violation; post-sentence motions were denied and Doughlas appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Doughlas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession | Circumstantial evidence (furtive movement over the spot where gun was found, proximity, nervous behavior, lack of authorization to use vehicle) establishes constructive possession | Evidence was insufficient; court would have to speculate as to constructive possession — no direct proof linking Doughlas to the gun, limited investigation of driver/rental, no proof of registration | Affirmed — sufficient evidence of constructive possession from totality of circumstances |
| Weight of the evidence | Evidence was not so tenuous or unreliable as to shock the conscience; officer testimony credible | Claims mirror sufficiency argument; challenges credibility and speculative nature of constructive-possession inference | Waived for failure to distinguish from sufficiency; alternatively, no abuse of discretion — weight supports verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Antidormi v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (possibility that possession is an essential element of firearms offenses)
- Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 67 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. 2013) (possession is an element of certain firearms offenses)
- Heidler v. Commonwealth, 741 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1999) (possession may be actual, constructive, or joint constructive)
- Parker v. Commonwealth, 847 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2004) (constructive possession is an inference from a set of facts)
- Harvard v. Commonwealth, 64 A.3d 690 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Commonwealth must show ability and intent to exercise control; intent may be inferred)
- Kirkland v. Commonwealth, 831 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. 2003) (when contraband is not found on person, Commonwealth must prove constructive possession)
- Roberts v. Commonwealth, 133 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 818 A.2d 514 (Pa. Super. 2003) (circumstantial evidence linking accused to crime can sustain conviction)
- Boatwright v. Commonwealth, 453 A.2d 1058 (Pa. Super. 1982) (mere presence in vehicle with contraband insufficient to prove possession)
- Clay v. Commonwealth, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (standard for reviewing weight of the evidence claims)
- Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 820 A.2d 795 (Pa. Super. 2003) (verdict will be overturned for weight only if evidence is so tenuous it shocks the conscience)