Com. v. Vinson, C.
1271 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Early morning traffic stop: Officer Hagan chased an SUV after it nearly hit a car and ran two stop signs; the driver (Vinson) fled on foot and hid in woods before surrendering.
- Upon arrest, Vinson told officers there was a shotgun in the back seat of the SUV.
- Officer Middleton searched the vehicle and found a backpack in the rear seat containing three disassembled pieces described as parts of a double-barrel shotgun (barrel, another barrel piece, and the handle/receiver) and 13 live shotgun rounds.
- The recovered barrel measured 13.5 inches (under the 18-inch legal threshold for shotguns).
- Vinson was stipulated to be a person prohibited from possessing firearms due to a prior conviction; he pled insufficient-evidence on constructive possession and on whether the parts constituted a firearm/sawed-off shotgun.
- Trial court denied suppression; jury convicted Vinson of prohibited offensive weapon (sawed-off shotgun) under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 908(a) and persons not to possess firearms under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1); sentence 4–8 years; appeal challenges sufficiency of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth proved Vinson constructively possessed the backpack/parts | Commonwealth: flight, admission that a shotgun was in the back, and proximity supported an inference of conscious dominion | Vinson: at most knew items were in someone else’s SUV; no proof he had control over them | Court: Sufficient — flight + admission + totality of circumstances support constructive possession |
| Whether the three pieces were sufficient proof of a firearm and a sawed-off shotgun | Commonwealth: admission that it was a shotgun, presence of 13 live rounds, and barrel length (13.5") permitted jury to infer the pieces constituted a (sawed-off) firearm | Vinson: Commonwealth failed to show pieces could be assembled or that any piece was a frame/receiver | Court: Sufficient — operability not required; evidence and admission allowed jury to conclude pieces were a firearm and a sawed-off shotgun |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pruitt, 951 A.2d 307 (Pa. 2008) (standard of review for sufficiency challenges and deference to jury credibility findings)
- Commonwealth v. Parker, 847 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2004) (defines constructive possession as an inference from facts and ‘conscious dominion’)
- Commonwealth v. Haskins, 677 A.2d 328 (Pa. Super. 1996) (constructive possession = power to control and intent to exercise control)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 146 A.3d 257 (Pa. Super. 2016) (flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 988 A.2d 669 (Pa. Super. 2009) (definition of “firearm” in § 6105 and operability not required)
- Commonwealth v. Ponds, 345 A.2d 253 (Pa. Super. 1975) (possession of a sawed-off shotgun need only show outward appearance/characteristics; operability not required)