Com. v. Mitchell, L.
Com. v. Mitchell, L. No. 1356 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 17, 2017Background
- Commonwealth appeals an August 11, 2016 habeas corpus order that dismissed misdemeanor possession of heroin and drug paraphernalia charges.
- Mitchell was originally charged with felonies conspiracy and PWID, plus misdemeanors possession of heroin and drug paraphernalia and a summary disorderly conduct count; preliminary hearing dismissed conspiracy and PWID.
- On April 7, 2016, police found under-18 occupants, an open foil package with two marijuana joints, and later a candy box containing 100–150 bags of heroin during a vehicle search.
- Mitchell testified she did not know of the drugs and that she did not possess them; she claimed no cell phone or driver’s license, and she had exited the vehicle when confronted by police.
- Trial court held there was no prima facie case for possession and dismissed the charges; Commonwealth appealed, arguing joint possession and knowledge could be inferred.
- Appellate standard requires the Commonwealth to present evidence of all elements and the defendant’s complicity; constructive possession may be shown by actual, constructive, or joint constructive possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth showed prima facie possession | Mitchell possessed items via joint constructive possession | Mitchell lacked knowledge and dominion; proximity alone insufficient | Commonwealth failed to prove prima facie possession |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Vargas, 108 A.3d 858 (Pa. Super. 2014) (constructive possession requires power and intent to control)
- Commonwealth v. Macolino, 469 A.2d 132 (Pa. 1983) (constructive possession requires control)
- Commonwealth v. Stembridge, 579 A.2d 901 (Pa. Super. 1990) (easier access by passenger does not prove possession)
- Commonwealth v. Spencer, 621 A.2d 153 (Pa. Super. 1993) (no constructive possession where passenger lacks knowledge or control)
- Commonwealth v. Juliano, 490 A.2d 891 (Pa. Super. 1985) (no knowledge inferred from lack of furtive conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Cruz-Ortega, 539 A.2d 849 (Pa. Super. 1988) (drug under seat; inference of possession requires more than proximity)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 631 A.2d 625 (Pa. Super. 1993) (drug at defendant’s feet; conduct supports possession inference)
- Commonwealth v. James, 863 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc standard for prima facie showing)
- Commonwealth v. Karetny, 880 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2005) (prima facie questions are questions of law)
- Commonwealth v. Dantzler, 135 A.3d 1109 (Pa. Super. 2016) (how to review prima facie evidence in habeas context)