Com. v. Smith, K., 1881 EDA 2015

Appellant Khalil Smith was convicted by a jury of three VUFA offenses: 6105 (possession of firearm by prohibited person), 6106 (unlicensed firearm), and 6108 (carrying on Philadelphia streets).
The trial court sentenced Smith to 8.5 to 17 years’ imprisonment in June 2015.
Police observed Smith with a firearm in his hand in close proximity to an unmarked police vehicle; he allegedly placed the gun into his waistband.
A subsequent stop of the Nissan Altima recovered a loaded .32-caliber revolver from the rear of the vehicle, reportedly the same gun seen in Smith’s hand.
Defense witness Bosket testified that the back-seat passenger possessed the gun, not Smith.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding the evidence was sufficient to prove actual and constructive possession and to sustain the VUFA convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support VUFA convictions	Smith contends no possession (actual or constructive) was proved	State argues observed possession and in-car movements prove possession	Evidence sufficient to prove possession and sustain all convictions

Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (sufficiency review is de novo; consider evidence for all elements)
Commonwealth v. Harvard, 64 A.3d 690 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013) (constructive possession based on totality of circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Mudrick, 507 A.2d 1212 (Pa. 1986) (definition of constructive possession)
Commonwealth v. DeCampli, 364 A.2d 454 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976) (totality of circumstances supports inference of control)
Commonwealth v. Stembridge, 579 A.2d 901 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990) (furtive movements within car support possession inference)
Commonwealth v. Bradley, 69 A.3d 253 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013) (sufficiency review framework for evidence)