Commonwealth v. Estepp, 17 A.3d 939

In 2006, Officer Cujdik received information that a white male named Vern was selling prescription drugs from 2828 Agate Street, and a controlled buy yielded two oxycodone pills.
Authorities obtained a search warrant for 2828 Agate Street; although Appellant did not own the house, he was registered to vote and listed at the address.
A post-search seizure recovered cash, a key to the residence, an ID listing the address, and cigarettes on Appellant; inside the home, Xanax under a bed, cocaine in a Newport cigarette box, and drug paraphernalia were found.
Two billing statements addressed to Appellant at 2828 Agate Street were found; the home contained two other bedrooms not in habitable condition.
On January 30, 2008, a jury convicted Estepp of possession with intent to deliver (PWID) and possession of drug paraphernalia, with a sentence of 3–6 years’ imprisonment plus two years’ probation.
Estepp appealed, raising issues about remand for police misconduct investigations, sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession, hearsay from a confidential informant, and a mere presence jury instruction, which this Court ultimately denied or rejected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Remand for police misconduct hearings	Estepp seeks remand based on alleged misconduct by Officer Cujdik.	Commonwealth contends the proffered newspaper sources are insufficient for after-discovered evidence remand.	Remand denied; articles insufficient to establish after-discovered evidence.
Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession	Estepp argues there was insufficient evidence he constructively possessed the drugs.	Commonwealth argues totality of circumstances proves dominion and control over the substances.	Sufficient evidence of constructive possession and control established.
Admission of hearsay from confidential informant	Estepp contends the informant's out-of-court statements were inadmissible hearsay to show guilt.	Commonwealth argues statements were admitted to explain officer's conduct with limiting instruction.	Admissible as non-hearsay to explain conduct; limiting instruction given; no abuse.
Mere presence jury instruction	Estepp requests a specific 'mere presence' instruction to negate conviction on proximity alone.	Commonwealth maintains evidence and charge adequately instructed on elements without requiring a strict mere-presence instruction.	No error; charge, viewed as a whole, properly instructed on possession elements.

Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 A.3d 852 (Pa. Super. 2010) (sufficiency review and standard for circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 947 A.2d 800 (Pa. Super. 2008) (constructive possession framework)
Commonwealth v. Muniz, 5 A.3d 345 (Pa. Super. 2010) (totality of circumstances in possession cases)
Commonwealth v. Walker, 874 A.2d 667 (Pa. Super. 2005) (joint control and dominion over contraband)
Commonwealth v. Sanes, 955 A.2d 369 (Pa. Super. 2008) (joint access may support constructive possession)
Commonwealth v. Dargan, 897 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 2006) (limits of hearsay when used to explain officer conduct)
Commonwealth v. Rega, 593 Pa. 659, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007) (out-of-court statements used to explain witness conduct)
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 939 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 2007) (after-discovered evidence remand standards)
Commonwealth v. Flor, 606 Pa. 384, 998 A.2d 606 (Pa. 2010) (jury instruction adequacy and evidentiary balance)
Commonwealth v. La, 433 Pa. Super. 432, 640 A.2d 1336 (Pa. Super. 1994) (mere presence instruction not always required)
Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 604 Pa. 493, 986 A.2d 759 (Pa. 2009) (standard for evaluating jury instructions)