Com. v. Wiley, J., Com. v. Wiley, J. No. 3667 EDA 2015

On Jan. 30, 2015, Officer Bergey stopped a 1998 Mercedes driven by Jared Wiley for a one‑working‑brake‑light violation; passenger Andrew Robinson was present.
Officer Bergey discovered a wallet containing a Florida carry permit in the vehicle; the permit named Marasailles Burton, the vehicle’s registered owner and a corrections officer.
Wiley admitted knowing a gun was in the car and told the officer its location; the officer recovered the firearm from the driver’s‑side area. Burton arrived later and identified the firearm as his and said Wiley lacked permission to take the gun or car.
Wiley was charged with, and tried on, multiple counts including violations of 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6106 and 6108 (carrying a firearm without a license); at a bench trial he was convicted on the firearm counts but sentenced to “no further penalty.”
The trial court explicitly discredited key portions of Burton’s testimony but found constructive possession based on Wiley’s knowledge of the gun and use of Burton’s car.
On appeal the Superior Court reviewed whether the Commonwealth proved constructive possession (power and intent to control the gun) beyond a reasonable doubt and reversed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession of the firearm	Commonwealth: Burton’s testimony that Wiley took the gun after the three fell asleep and Wiley’s admission he knew the gun was in the car sufficed to infer intent to control.	Wiley: No evidence showed he had conscious dominion or intent to exercise control over the firearm; mere presence and knowledge are insufficient.	Reversed: Commonwealth failed to prove intent to exercise control; mere presence and knowledge did not establish constructive possession.

Commonwealth v. Thomas, 867 A.2d 594 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Valette, 613 A.2d 548 (Pa. 1992) (constructive possession requires power to control and intent to exercise control)
Commonwealth v. Macolino, 469 A.2d 132 (Pa. 1983) (constructive possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Haskins, 677 A.2d 328 (Pa. Super. 1996) (presence of others does not preclude constructive possession but elements must be proven)
Commonwealth v. Boatwright, 453 A.2d 1058 (Pa. Super. 1982) (mere presence or a small movement insufficient to prove constructive possession of firearm in vehicle)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426 (Pa. Super. 2012) (discusses conscious dominion requirement for possession)
Commonwealth v. Hartle, 894 A.2d 800 (Pa. Super. 2006) (reciting standards for possession and constructive possession)
Commonwealth v. Beasley, 138 A.3d 39 (Pa. Super. 2016) (fact‑finder credibility determinations are entitled to deference)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 153 A.3d 372 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appellate court may not reweigh evidence on sufficiency review)