Corey Nishawn Dagner v. Commonwealth of Virginia
1228151
Va. Ct. App.Oct 25, 2016Background
- Dagner, a convicted felon, was a back-seat passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation; officer observed him looking at the floorboard and moving his feet.
- Officer found an open beer and arrested front-seat passenger Reaves after finding suspected drugs; while looking under the front passenger seat the officer saw and recovered a handgun beneath that seat.
- The gun’s handle was facing toward Dagner and the barrel toward the front; the gun was near the rear edge of the front passenger seat and closer to Dagner than to the front passenger.
- Dagner told the officer that Reaves had the gun and that Dagner heard it drop, but denied touching or owning it; officer testified Reaves could have shoved the gun under the seat but thought that unlikely given the orientation of the weapon.
- Trial court found Dagner guilty of possession of a firearm after a non-violent felony, concluding the Commonwealth proved Dagner knew the gun was present and it was within his reach; Dagner appealed sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Dagner knew of the firearm’s presence and character | The Commonwealth: Dagner’s statement that Reaves had the gun shows awareness of the weapon’s presence and character | Dagner: Insufficient proof he knew the gun was present or its character; mere proximity is inadequate | Court: Affirmed — statement plus circumstances support knowledge |
| Whether evidence proved Dagner exercised dominion and control (constructive possession) | The Commonwealth: orientation and location of the gun (handle toward Dagner, near him) and cramped rear seat permit inference Dagner placed/controlled it | Dagner: Other passengers or Reaves could have placed the gun there; no direct proof he exercised control | Court: Affirmed — facts permit reasonable inference of dominion and control; hypothesis of innocence not dispositive |
| Whether Commonwealth had to exclude possibility someone else placed the gun | The Commonwealth: not required to disprove every possibility; may rely on circumstances and inferences | Dagner: Argued alternative possibilities (other passengers/Reaves) undermine possession finding | Court: Affirmed — law does not require excluding all possibilities of third-party placement |
| Whether temporal proof (when possession occurred) was required | The Commonwealth: possession need only be proved at some moment; duration irrelevant | Dagner: Emphasized lack of evidence about how long gun was in car or when he knew of it | Court: Affirmed — no temporal duration requirement; momentary constructive possession suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Byers v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 174 (constructive possession requires awareness of presence and control)
- Powers v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 474 (same constructive-possession principles applied)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 1 (Commonwealth not required to eliminate possibility someone else placed contraband)
- Hancock v. Commonwealth, 21 Va. App. 466 (possession based on proximity alone is insufficient)
- Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 751 (duration of possession is immaterial)