Com. v. Sweeney, L.
Com. v. Sweeney, L. No. 1614 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.May 22, 2017Background
- Appellant Leaveil A. Sweeney was convicted after a bench trial of DUI (general impairment), possession of a small amount of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving under suspension; sentenced to 9–16 months’ imprisonment.
- Police stopped a Lexus driven by Sweeney after observing lane deviations and continued driving for ~½ mile after signals; officer smelled freshly burnt marijuana upon approach.
- Officer found two partially-smoked marijuana "roaches" in a cigar wrapper behind the front passenger visor; a pill bottle and a digital scale were also recovered (exact locations disputed).
- Passenger (and owner of the vehicle), Mrs. Sweeney, produced the cigar wrapper and later pled guilty to the drug counts; she testified she owned the contraband and that Appellant did not know of it.
- Officer observed signs consistent with marijuana use by Appellant (bloodshot/watery eyes, confused/distant demeanor) and Appellant performed poorly on field sobriety tests; Appellant denied using alcohol or marijuana.
- Trial court found Mrs. Sweeney not credible and concluded, based on the totality of circumstances, that Appellant jointly constructively possessed the marijuana and paraphernalia. Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession of marijuana and paraphernalia | Commonwealth: circumstantial evidence (odor, recovered roaches, Appellant’s impairment, failure to stop) supports constructive/joint possession | Sweeney: vehicle belonged to wife who was within reach of contraband; Commonwealth failed to prove he knew of or intended to control the items | Affirmed: totality of circumstances permitted finding of joint constructive possession |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and role of fact-finder credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Harvard, 64 A.3d 690 (Pa. Super. 2013) (constructive possession requires ability to exercise conscious control and intent to do so)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. 2013) (constructive possession is an inference from facts that possession was more likely than not)
- Commonwealth v. Markman, 916 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (circumstantial evidence may alone sustain constructive possession under totality of circumstances)