Elmore v. State, 115 A.3d 1214

On April 18, 2014, police responded to a possible domestic disturbance at room 201 of the Capital Inn Motel; officers encountered Amir Elmore in the motel lobby after interviewing a witness, Aisha Legrand.
Elmore admitted hitting Legrand and, after being handcuffed, made an unprompted statement to Officer Wood asking to have “his gun back” and said the gun was “under the first bed as you entered the hotel room.”
Officers searched room 201 and recovered a loaded sawed-off shotgun and two live shotgun shells under the first bed.
Elmore’s criminal record revealed a prior felony (Robbery Second Degree), making him a person prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under 11 Del. C. § 1448(a)(1).
After a one-day bench trial, the Superior Court convicted Elmore of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (PFBPP) and Possession of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited (PABPP); Elmore moved for judgment of acquittal, which was denied.
The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether, viewing the evidence favorably to the State, any rational factfinder could find the elements of constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of constructive possession of firearm and ammunition	State: Elmore’s unprompted statement identifying the gun’s location, the dispatch concerning room 201, and recovery of the gun where he said it create a sufficient nexus and show knowledge, control, and intent	Elmore: Insufficient nexus; no physical observation of him entering/leaving room 201 and argues Lecates requires physical availability/accessibility	Court: Affirmed conviction — circumstantial evidence including Elmore’s specific statement linking him to the gun established constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether physical availability/accessibility is required to prove PFBPP/PABPP	State: Not required; constructive possession can be proven circumstantially	Elmore: Relies on Lecates to argue physical availability should be required	Court: Rejected Elmore’s reading of Lecates; physical availability/accessibility is not essential to PFBPP/PABPP (distinct standard from weapons-during-felony offenses)

White v. State, 906 A.2d 82 (Del. 2011) (standard of de novo review for judgment of acquittal sufficiency review)
Lecates v. State, 987 A.2d 413 (Del. 2009) (clarifies that physical availability/accessibility is not essential to proving possession by a person prohibited; differentiates standards for weapons-during-felony offenses)