Com. v. Vega, R.
2053 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Appellant Rene Vega was tried for possessing a handgun found in a five-by-five-foot barbershop restroom ceiling after he hurried into and out of the restroom while an officer followed.
- Officer Carter observed Vega reenter the shop and briskly enter the restroom immediately after police approached Vega and a companion; Vega exited in about five to ten seconds.
- When the officer entered the restroom just after Vega exited, he found a displaced ceiling tile with the handle of a revolver protruding; no one else was in the barbershop main floor.
- Vega told the officer he had to use the bathroom; the trial court found this explanation implausible given his prior pass by the restroom and lack of indications he had used it.
- The Commonwealth prosecuted on a theory of constructive possession because Vega did not have the gun on his person when detained.
- The Superior Court dissent (Stevens, P.J.E.) would affirm the trial court, concluding the totality of circumstances supported constructive possession and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession of the gun | Commonwealth: Vega’s hurried entry/exit, evasive behavior, implausible explanation, gun hidden in ceiling directly above sink/toilet support inference he discarded it there | Vega: He did not have the gun on his person; possession not proved beyond a reasonable doubt; others could have hidden it | Court (dissent): Sufficient — totality of circumstances supports constructive possession and consciousness of guilt |
| Whether flight/evasive conduct can show consciousness of guilt | Commonwealth: Yes; Vega’s conduct and false explanation indicate consciousness of guilt | Vega: Nervousness not dispositive; alternative explanations possible | Court: Such conduct can be inferred as consciousness of guilt and supports conviction |
| Whether the incomplete concealment and absence of others supports attribution to Vega | Commonwealth: Incomplete hiding and no one else present make it likely Vega hid the gun hastily | Vega: Possibility someone else from basement or elsewhere hid it; not proven | Court: Reasonable to infer Vega attempted to conceal the gun moments earlier; supports possession finding |
| Whether constructive possession requires direct physical control at time of detention | Vega: Without gun on person, Commonwealth failed to prove constructive possession | Commonwealth: Constructive possession may be inferred from control and intent shown by circumstances | Court: Constructive possession proven by conscious dominion inferred from facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426 (Pa. Super. 2012) (definition of constructive possession as conscious dominion)
- Commonwealth v. Woody, 679 A.2d 817 (Pa. Super. 1996) (constructive possession may be established by totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Tharp, 101 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2014) (consciousness of guilt inferences from false statements and conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519 (Pa. 2003) (false concocted tales suggest consciousness of guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 570 A.2d 1338 (Pa. Super. 1990) (flight or evasive conduct supports inference of consciousness of guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Whiting, 187 A.2d 563 (Pa. 1963) (hurried exit and false statements indicate consciousness of guilt)