26 N.E.3d 741
Mass.2015Background
- In November 2011 Taunton police executed a warrant at a second-floor apartment; 8–10 occupants were inside, including brothers Jason and Adilson Teixeira. The apartment had three bedrooms off a short interior hallway and a sealed attic hatch in the hallway ceiling.
- Officers searched occupants on entry: Adilson had $340; Jason arrived later and had $375 and a key that fit one bedroom door.
- In the bedroom keyed by Jason, police found a small bag of heroin, Jason’s baptismal certificate, a cellphone, and scales. In a second bedroom police found two small bags of heroin, $29, and Adilson’s birth certificate. A woman’s jacket in that bedroom held $200 and ten small heroin bags in a zippered pocket. The defendants stipulated the bags contained heroin.
- Police accessed the attic only by pushing in a small hatch and physically boosting an officer up; no ladder or pull-down stairs existed. In the attic they recovered a small plastic bag containing two loaded handguns and ammunition; nothing else from the attic was reported.
- Defendants were convicted of possession of heroin (lesser included offense), unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. The Appeals Court affirmed; the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for heroin possession | Presence in apartment plus personal documents and items found in bedrooms near heroin establish possession | Defendants implicitly argued lack of control or intent to possess (no direct admission) | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence (documents, proximity, access) sufficient to prove possession |
| Sufficiency of evidence for firearm and ammunition possession (constructive possession) | Attic was accessible from apartment; occupants had ability to control items there, supporting inference of constructive possession | No evidence showing knowledge, intent, or any connection between defendants and attic items; attic equally accessible to all occupants; no paraphernalia or other indicia linking guns to defendants | Reversed — evidence insufficient to prove knowledge and intent to exercise dominion and control over firearms/ammo |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pratt, 407 Mass. 647 (1990) (presence plus personal items near contraband supports possession)
- Commonwealth v. Brzezinski, 405 Mass. 401 (1989) (constructive possession requires knowledge plus ability and intent to exercise dominion and control)
- Commonwealth v. Deagle, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 563 (1980) (circumstantial evidence can establish constructive possession)
- Commonwealth v. LaPerle, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 424 (1985) (inferences from circumstantial evidence in possession cases)
- Commonwealth v. Albano, 373 Mass. 132 (1977) (presence alone insufficient; presence plus incriminating evidence may tip sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Caraballo, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 616 (1992) (no constructive possession where contraband concealed in common-area ceiling with no link to defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Montanez, 410 Mass. 290 (1991) (possession found where ceiling concealment in common hallway was closely tied to defendant’s apartment and matched packaging)
- Commonwealth v. Gomes, 453 Mass. 506 (2009) (drug activity alone does not necessarily imply presence of weapons)
- Commonwealth v. Jimenez, 438 Mass. 213 (2002) (similar caution against inferring weapons presence solely from drug activity)