Com. v. Mason, D.
1936 EDA 2013
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 21, 2016Background
- On Jan. 12, 2012, Officer Barry Stewart observed Diane Mason engage in two hand-to-hand transactions on North 43rd/Otter Street in Philadelphia: money exchanged for small objects; Mason briefly left view between approach and return in each instance.
- After the second transaction with Arthur Stanford, officers stopped Stanford; he discarded and officers recovered three light orange packets containing crack cocaine.
- Mason was arrested later the same evening; no cash or drugs were found on her and no stash or companion was located.
- Mason was convicted (bench trial) of Possession With Intent to Deliver (PWID) and Knowing/Intentional Possession; original sentence was vacated on post-sentence motion and she received 11.5–23 months plus 5 years probation on the PWID count.
- Mason appealed claiming insufficient evidence that she possessed or delivered controlled substances; the trial court and Superior Court reviewed the record and affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession and PWID | Commonwealth: surveillance, eyewitness ID of Mason making hand-to-hand sales, buyer (Stanford) possessed recovered crack — supports inference Mason sold drugs | Mason: no drugs/cash seized from her, no stash, transactions were circumstantial and speculative | Court: Evidence (observed hand-to-hand exchanges, ID of Mason, recovered drugs from buyer) sufficient to infer constructive possession and intent to deliver; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 956 A.2d 1024 (Pa. Super. 2008) (PWID requires possession and intent to deliver)
- Commonwealth v. Conaway, 791 A.2d 359 (Pa. Super. 2002) (intent to deliver may be inferred from surrounding facts; factors include packaging and behavior)
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 5 A.3d 345 (Pa. Super. 2010) (constructive possession defined as conscious dominion; established by totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Estepp, 17 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. 2011) (if contraband not on person, Commonwealth must prove constructive possession)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 100 A.3d 207 (Pa. Super. 2014) (applying sufficiency review and reasonable inferences in favor of Commonwealth)