Com. v. Rubinosky, C.
Com. v. Rubinosky, C. No. 274 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- On July 27, 2015, state troopers stopped a Cadillac for expired registration; Cody Rubinosky was the sole rear-seat passenger on the driver’s side.
- Rubinosky exited the vehicle and walked briskly toward a Walmart; troopers pursued, identified him as involved in the stop, and returned him to the car.
- Officers observed a dark backpack in the center of the backseat; a search produced a loaded Stallard Arms JS-9 9mm pistol inside the backpack.
- Front-seat passenger Christine Kennelley initially told troopers the backpack and gun belonged to Rubinosky, though at trial she recanted parts of that statement and testified she couldn’t recall ownership; she and the driver admitted heroin use that day.
- Rubinosky gave false identification to officers and repeatedly said nothing in the vehicle belonged to him; he was convicted by a jury of persons prohibited from possessing firearms (18 Pa.C.S. § 6105), carrying a firearm without a license (18 Pa.C.S. § 6106), and false identification (18 Pa.C.S. § 4914).
- Trial court sentenced Rubinosky to an aggregate 60–120 months’ imprisonment; on appeal he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the two firearms convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession of the firearm (constructive possession for §§ 6105, 6106) | Commonwealth: circumstantial evidence (backpack with gun adjacent to defendant, Kennelley’s statements, defendant’s flight/nervousness, false ID) supports constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt | Rubinosky: gun found in vehicle owned by others; Kennelley’s trial testimony recanted prior statements; no fingerprints/DNA; multiple persons rode in backseat — Commonwealth failed to link him to gun | Court affirmed: totality of circumstances supported constructive possession; jury credited Kennelley’s out-of-court statements and defendant’s behavior showed consciousness of guilt; lack of forensic evidence not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. 2013) (constructive possession defined as "conscious dominion")
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 865 A.2d 761 (Pa. 2004) (post-offense conduct and manifestations of mental distress admissible to show guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Cruz, 21 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2011) (consciousness of guilt shown by giving multiple names/dates of birth)
- Commonwealth v. Micking, 17 A.3d 924 (Pa. Super. 2011) (extreme nervousness admissible as consciousness of guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Dent, 837 A.2d 571 (Pa. Super. 2003) (flight is evidence of consciousness of guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 57 A.3d 74 (Pa. Super. 2012) (absence of forensic evidence does not negate a circumstantial-evidence case)
- Commonwealth v. Flythe, 417 A.2d 633 (Pa. Super. 1979) (contraband in close proximity to defendant supports an inference of knowledge and possession)
- Commonwealth v. Ramtahal, 33 A.3d 602 (Pa. 2011) (jury decides witness credibility and may accept prior inconsistent statements)