Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426

Appellant Taheir Brown convicted of possession of a controlled substance and possession with intent to deliver (PWID); sentence 3–5 years.
Police intercepted two marijuana packages shipped from Southern Charm to 1431 Palm Street, Reading; canine alerted to both parcels.
A search warrant revealed 31.8 pounds of marijuana (16.8 + 15 pounds).
Controlled delivery occurred: Trooper Rudy, wearing FedEx attire, delivered the packages; Brown answered and accepted them for the Newmanns.
One package was hidden in a closet; the other remained in the living room; Investigator Leporace testified to intent to deliver and value of drugs; Brown presented three character witnesses.
Trial testimony included expert opinion that large quantities and lack of drug paraphernalia supported an inference of intent to deliver.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence on knowledge and intent	Brown lacked knowledge of marijuana and intent to possess.	Evidence mirrored Sterling and Rambo; insufficient knowledge.	Sufficient evidence; hid one box supports knowledge/intent.
Weight of the evidence	Weight of evidence favors not guilty due to character evidence.	Verdict should be against weight due to speculation.	No abuse of discretion; verdict not against the weight of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Parkersburg?, 847 A.2d 745 (Pa.Super.2004) (constructive possession via conscious dominion; totality of the circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Sterling, 361 A.2d 799 (Pa. Super. 1976) (insufficient knowledge where package to third party; open delivery)
Commonwealth v. Rambo, 412 A.2d 535 (Pa. 1980) (insufficient knowledge; distinctions insufficient to sustain conviction)
Commonwealth v. Mohamud, 15 A.3d 80 (Pa. Super. 2010) (surreptitious behavior supports knowledge)
Commonwealth v. Lee, 956 A.2d 1024 (Pa. Super. 2008) (intent to deliver inferred from quantity)
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308 (2000) (standard for weight of the evidence challenges)