JEROME PROCTOR, JR. v. UNITED STATES
156 A.3d 102
| D.C. | 2017Background
- Jerome Proctor was stopped in an unmarked car after a brake-light violation; officers smelled marijuana and found ~1 oz in the console (with Proctor’s ID) and ~249 g in an opaque bag and a scale in the back seat.
- A warrant search of a house where Proctor stayed (co-defendant Johnson’s home) uncovered a CVS bag under a bed containing a wrapped 9mm handgun, a magazine with 15 rounds plus one in the chamber, children’s drawings with the name “Jerome Proctor,” and SunTrust mail addressed to Proctor; a bedroom closet contained ~1 oz of marijuana, empty sandwich bags, and $2,180 in a male jacket pocket.
- Expert testimony linked scales, sandwich bags, and guns to drug distribution generally and valued the seized marijuana amounts; defense witnesses (including Johnson and the car passenger Buckmon) offered alternate explanations for ownership and possession.
- At trial the court granted Johnson acquittals on several counts and excluded certain firearms/ammunition records for lack of foundation; Proctor was convicted of misdemeanor possession with intent to distribute (marijuana < 1/2 lb), unlawful possession of a firearm (prior conviction), possession of a large-capacity feeding device, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Proctor did not file a pretrial suppression motion; he appealed arguing (1) Fourth Amendment suppression issues should be considered despite waiver and (2) insufficiency of evidence (especially constructive possession of the firearm and ammo device).
- The court affirmed Proctor’s drug and paraphernalia convictions, reversed the unlawful-firearm and large-capacity-feeding-device convictions, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Proctor’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fourth Amendment claims may be considered on appeal though no pretrial suppression motion was filed | Proctor urged appellate review (plain error) of searches of sealed car container and house | Waiver applies; defendant failed to move to suppress pretrial and showed no exceptional circumstances | Waiver; court declined to review the Fourth Amendment claim |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove constructive possession of the handgun | Proctor: others had access to premises; he was not present when gun was found; mail/other items don’t prove dominion and intent beyond reasonable doubt | Gov: gun was found with Proctor’s mail in bedroom he occupied; drugs, scale, cash and packaging tie him to a drug enterprise; expert linked guns to dealers | Reversed — evidence insufficient to prove constructive possession of the gun beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove possession of a large-capacity ammunition-feeding device | Proctor: same insufficiency arguments apply to ammo-device charge | Gov: same circumstantial linkage to drug operation and presence of gun/ammo in bedroom supports conviction | Reversed — insufficient evidence for ammo-feeding-device conviction |
| Whether evidence supports convictions for PWID and possession of drug paraphernalia | Proctor challenged linking of some marijuana to him and ownership of scale/bags | Gov: marijuana in car with Proctor’s ID, large quantity in car, scale and bags, and other corroborating facts support PWID; paraphernalia found | Affirmed — convictions for drug possession with intent to distribute and paraphernalia upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. United States, 122 A.3d 876 (D.C. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review and guidance on constructive-possession fact-specific inquiry)
- Schools v. United States, 84 A.3d 503 (D.C. 2013) (proximity of contraband to personal papers can support constructive possession; but shared premises can weaken inference)
- Curry v. United States, 520 A.2d 255 (D.C. 1987) (where others have access to premises, conviction requires proof defendant was involved in criminal enterprise of which the contraband was part)
- Moore v. United States, 927 A.2d 1040 (D.C. 2007) (elements of constructive possession: knowledge, ability, and intent to exercise dominion and control)
- Rivas v. United States, 783 A.2d 125 (D.C. 2001) (proof must exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence; appellate court must ensure verdict meets beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard)