Com. v. Kendrick, M.
247 WDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 11, 2022Background
- Police stopped a car for an inoperable taillight; four occupants including Kendrick were in the vehicle.
- Officer smelled marijuana; one passenger admitted smoking and handed an apparent marijuana bag to an officer.
- Officers ordered occupants out, frisked them, and one officer observed an AK-47 on the back-floor; occupants were handcuffed.
- A subsequent vehicle search uncovered two additional guns and a substance described by an officer as heroin; a Glock 23 was found under the rear passenger seat where Kendrick had been sitting and required bending down to see.
- No lab testing was done on the suspected heroin; no fingerprints or DNA tied Kendrick to the Glock; occupants made no admissions; Kendrick was cooperative and made no furtive movements; the driver had a license to carry.
- After a non-jury trial the court convicted Kendrick of two firearm offenses (based on constructive possession of the Glock) and one drug-possession offense; the Superior Court reversed all convictions for insufficiency (and vacated the drug conviction for lack of lab proof).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Kendrick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to prove constructive possession of the Glock (firearm convictions) | Proximity/placement: gun was “just under” the seat where Kendrick sat and would have been reachable; multiple guns in different locations suggest attributable weapons to different occupants. | Proximity alone insufficient; no evidence Kendrick knew of the gun or intended to control it (no furtive acts, no statements, no fingerprints/DNA, driver licensed). | Reversed — evidence insufficient. A hidden gun plus mere proximity, without additional facts showing knowledge/intent, cannot support constructive-possession convictions. |
| Sufficiency to prove possession of a controlled substance (heroin) | Officer testimony said the substance appeared to be heroin. | No laboratory analysis, no packaging or other proof that the substance was a controlled substance. | Vacated/insufficient — Commonwealth failed to introduce lab report identifying the substance as a controlled substance. |
| Pa. R. Crim. P. 600 challenge (trial delay tied to co-defendant) | Commonwealth defended its handling of scheduling/severance. | Delay past the run date due to co-defendant warranted dismissal under Rule 600. | Not addressed substantively — court found reversal on sufficiency grounds made discussion of the Rule 600 claim unnecessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lynch, 242 A.3d 339 (Pa. Super. 2020) (articulates sufficiency-of-the-evidence review and standard for appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Parrish, 191 A.3d 31 (Pa. Super. 2018) (defines constructive possession as conscious dominion and permits circumstantial proof)
- Commonwealth v. Peters, 218 A.3d 1206 (Pa. 2019) (requires a nexus showing knowledge and the ability to exercise dominion and control)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. 2013) (affirmed constructive possession where proximity was supported by additional incriminating facts)
- Commonwealth v. Hamm, 447 A.2d 960 (Pa. Super. 1982) (a hidden weapon’s mere presence in a vehicle cannot alone support an inference that a passenger knew of it)
- Commonwealth v. Haskins, 677 A.2d 328 (Pa. Super. 1996) (contraband found in areas normally accessible to the driver can support attribution to driver)
- Commonwealth v. Bentley, 419 A.2d 85 (Pa. Super. 1980) (easy reach of weapon and related circumstantial facts supported attribution to driver)
- Commonwealth v. Flythe, 417 A.2d 633 (Pa. Super. 1979) (officer-observed movement toward location where contraband was found supported constructive-possession finding; dissent highlighted need for more than suspicion)