Commonwealth v. Hanson
623 Pa. 388
| Pa. | 2013Background
- Police bought crack from Hanson at a row house; Hanson used a key to enter and was observed as the only person entering/exiting; he pleaded guilty to PWID and admitted possession of drugs on the second floor; other charges were nolle prossed.
- Search of the house found drug paraphernalia and packets of crack/PCP on the second floor and a loaded handgun in a rear bedroom on that same floor; Hanson denied knowledge of the firearm and said he never went upstairs.
- A trial court quashed a separate weapons-possession charge pretrial but later imposed a five-year mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1(a) at sentencing, reasoning Hanson’s guilty plea implicated possession/control of all items in the house.
- Superior Court affirmed under a construction treating proximity itself as sufficient to establish control (a strict-liability approach); Hanson appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, holding that § 9712.1(a) requires knowing physical possession or control (including constructive control) and that “close proximity” is a context-dependent, non‑conclusive factor; the case was remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hanson) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “physical possession or control” | Requires immediate, direct physical accessibility and knowledge — more than passive/constructive possession | Means ability to exercise power or influence over the firearm; constructive control suffices and need not be immediate | Held: means knowing exercise of power over the weapon; may be direct or constructive control (scienter required) |
| Role of the four statutory examples (visible, concealed, within reach, close proximity) | They are independent requirements or at least require separate proof and should be narrowly construed under lenity | They are illustrative means to show possession/control; proximity can establish control under totality of circumstances | Held: examples illustrate ways to prove possession/control but are not independently sufficient; scienter applies to them too |
| Meaning and proof of “in close proximity” | Must be very near or intimately associated; narrow construction urged under lenity to avoid overbroad mandatory minimums | Commonsense, case-by-case totality test; an expansive interpretation is appropriate and can create a strong inference of control | Held: “in close proximity” means “very near” but is context-dependent; proximity can support an inference of knowing control but does not create an irrebuttable presumption; courts must apply totality of circumstances and use lenity to avoid expansive readings |
| Application to Hanson’s sentence (was § 9712.1(a) triggered?) | The Commonwealth did not prove Hanson knowingly controlled the gun or that the gun was in close proximity to the drugs | The facts (exclusive use of premises, sole key, drugs on same floor) suffice to show constructive control and proximity | Held: Superior Court erred (its strict-liability approach); record lacks sufficient, supported findings that drugs and gun were "very near" and that Hanson knowingly controlled the gun; remand for resentencing and factual development |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sanes, 955 A.2d 369 (Pa. Super. 2008) (treats constructive possession/proximity in § 9712.1 context)
- Commonwealth v. Zortman, 985 A.2d 238 (Pa. Super. 2009) (applies proximity analysis to mandate minimum sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Stein, 39 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2012) (interprets § 9712.1 as triggered by proximity to drugs)
- Commonwealth v. Person, 39 A.3d 302 (Pa. Super. 2012) (requires findings of possession/control and proximity)
- Commonwealth v. Macolino, 469 A.2d 132 (Pa. 1983) (defining constructive possession/control principles)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be treated as elements; discussed by parties)
- United States v. Markovitch, 442 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2006) (noting firearm found in close proximity to drugs supports inference of use in trafficking)