Com. v. Vega, R.
2053 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- On June 23, 2012, Philadelphia police detained Rene Vega after spotting him near a barbershop; Vega went into a public bathroom and exited shortly after.
- Officer Carter observed the butt of a loaded revolver protruding from above a displaced ceiling tile in the bathroom and recovered it.
- The gun was not tested for fingerprints or DNA, and Vega’s hands were not tested for gunshot residue.
- At a waiver trial, Officer Carter testified Vega did not show a waistband bulge or make movements indicating possession prior to entering the bathroom.
- The trial court found Vega guilty of the firearms offenses; on appeal, the Superior Court reversed, focusing on constructive possession.
- The reversal concluded the Commonwealth failed to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports possession of the firearm | Vega argues no constructive possession; mere presence is insufficient. | Commonwealth argues circumstantial evidence showed dominion and control by Vega. | Evidence insufficient to prove possession; judgment reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Heidler, 741 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1999) (constructive possession proven by totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. 2013) (definition of constructive possession as conscious dominion)
- Commonwealth v. Haskins, 677 A.2d 328 (Pa. Super. 1996) (circumstantial evidence admissible to prove possession)
- Commonwealth v. Valette, 613 A.2d 548 (Pa. Super. 1992) (mere presence insufficient to prove possession)
- Commonwealth v. Stanley, 309 A.2d 408 (Pa. 1973) (association/suspicion not enough for possession)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 480 A.2d 1035 (Pa. Super. 1984) (evidence tying defendant to contraband must show more than presence)