History
  • No items yet
midpage
Commonwealth v. Parrish
191 A.3d 31
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018
Read the full case

Background

  • On Aug. 7, 2014 Kingston police stopped a Lincoln for tinted windows; Braemar Parrish was a rear-seat passenger and Pernell Riddick was the driver.
  • Officers smelled marijuana, observed Riddick straddling the center console, and saw a handgun grip under the front passenger seat.
  • A search recovered in the front-passenger area: a black satchel containing a loaded .45, ~250 waxed heroin packets (bundled), methamphetamine packets, scales, packaging, a .40 handgun under the passenger seat, marijuana in the passenger door, extra magazine, and a bulletproof vest in the trunk.
  • Parrish had $1,335 on his person, was not the vehicle owner, had no keys, did not carry a bag into the car, cooperated with police, and did not flee.
  • A Commonwealth expert opined the drugs were for distribution and suggested the presence of two guns meant each occupant possessed a gun; no fingerprint testing was done on the recovered items.
  • Parrish was convicted by a jury of multiple drug and firearm offenses; the Superior Court reversed for insufficient evidence of Parrish’s possession and discharged him.

Issues

Issue Commonwealth's Argument Parrish's Argument Held
Sufficiency: Did Commonwealth prove Parrish knew of and had dominion/control over drugs and guns? Circumstantial evidence (location of contraband in occupied vehicle, presence of two guns, expert testimony, cash) supports constructive possession. Parrish was a rear-seat passenger, not owner/operator, had no bag, no keys, no fingerprints, and contraband was in front passenger area — insufficient to infer knowledge or control. Reversed: evidence insufficient to prove constructive possession; mere presence in the car and location/proximity of contraband inadequate.
Brady/discovery violations & after-discovered jail calls Commonwealth complied; withheld material not shown to be exculpatory or prejudicial. Trial counsel argued discovery and Brady violations warranted new trial. Not reached on merits (declined as sufficiency disposition dispositive).
Expert testimony: opinion that two guns indicates two possessors (impermissible opinion on guilt) Expert testimony was proper background/context for drug interdiction and danger; relevant to inference of possession. Testimony improperly opined on ultimate issue (guilt/possession) and should have been excluded. Not decided on merits (sufficiency disposition dispositive).
Restitution/Veon: whether restitution order illegal absent a statutory victim Restitution challenged under Veon precedent. Argued restitution improper because no victim as defined by law. Not decided on merits (sufficiency disposition dispositive).

Key Cases Cited

  • Melvin v. Commonwealth, 103 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
  • Brooker v. Commonwealth, 103 A.3d 325 (Pa. Super. 2014) (de novo review for sufficiency questions)
  • Heidler v. Commonwealth, 741 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1999) (possession can be actual, constructive, or joint constructive)
  • Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 67 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. 2013) (constructive possession defined as conscious dominion; established via totality of circumstances)
  • Parker v. Commonwealth, 847 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2004) (constructive possession supports firearm convictions)
  • Haskins v. Commonwealth, 677 A.2d 328 (Pa. Super. 1996) (constructive possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
  • Davis v. Commonwealth, 743 A.2d 946 (Pa. Super. 1999) (examples of circumstantial proof supporting constructive possession)
  • Valette v. Commonwealth, 613 A.2d 548 (Pa. 1992) (mere presence where contraband is found is insufficient to prove possession)
  • Juliano v. Commonwealth, 490 A.2d 891 (Pa. Super. 1985) (satchel in car before defendant entered insufficient to prove knowledge of contents)
  • Duffy v. Commonwealth, 340 A.2d 869 (Pa. Super. 1975) (passenger’s conviction reversed where evidence did not show knowledge of firearm and tools)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Commonwealth v. Parrish
Court Name: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Jun 15, 2018
Citation: 191 A.3d 31
Docket Number: 175 MDA 2017
Court Abbreviation: Pa. Super. Ct.