Com. v. Felton, D.
3085 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 8, 2017Background
- Police stopped a Lincoln Navigator after a traffic violation and smelled marijuana; driver consented to a search.
- Officers found a handgun with an obliterated serial number in the map pocket on the back of the front passenger seat, visible from above and within half an arm’s length of where Felton was seated in the middle row.
- A pill bottle with marijuana and packaging consistent with marijuana use were recovered; occupants admitted prior smoking.
- DNA swabs from the gun and from Felton yielded inconclusive results (insufficient data to include or exclude Felton); DNA of other occupants was not tested.
- Felton was convicted after a bench trial of possession of a firearm without a license, carrying a firearm on public streets of Philadelphia, and possession of a firearm with an altered serial number; sentence was 11.5–23 months plus four years’ probation.
- Felton appealed raising insufficiency and weight-of-the-evidence claims focused on lack of proof of constructive possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Felton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Did evidence establish constructive possession of the firearm? | Circumstantial facts (gun visible in map pocket, within arm’s reach, occupants removed after consented search, evidence of drug use) support inference Felton had power and intent to control the gun. | Mere presence in the vehicle, lack of ownership, other occupants, inconclusive DNA, and no one observed him touch the gun—insufficient to prove constructive possession. | Affirmed: totality of circumstances permits inference of constructive possession. |
| Weight of the evidence: Is the verdict so contrary to the evidence that it shocks the conscience? | Credible officer testimony, context of criminal activity, and phone calls undermining innocence justify the verdict and its weight. | Verdict is against the weight because no forensic link, vehicle not his, and no direct observation of possession. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict not so contrary as to shock justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873 (Pa. 2008) (sufficiency review and constructive-possession principles)
- Commonwealth v. Parker, 847 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2004) (constructive possession may be inferred from totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Cruz, 21 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2011) (possession requires power and intent to control)
- Townsend v. Commonwealth, 237 A.2d 192 (Pa. 1968) (mere presence and uncertain seating position insufficient for possession)
- Armstead v. Commonwealth, 305 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1973) (reversing possession conviction where weapon could have been discarded by another)
- Commonwealth v. Duffy, 340 A.2d 869 (Pa. Super. 1975) (weapon out of reach and no evidence of criminal activity undermines possession inference)
- Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128 (Pa. 2011) (standard for reviewing weight-of-the-evidence claims)