State of Tennessee v. Demarcus Holman, W2015-01744-CCA-R3-CD

In 2007 Holman pled guilty to aggravated burglary, a felony involving force; this prior conviction was authenticated at trial.
In 2013 Holman was a passenger-turned-driver in a vehicle stopped for equipment/tag issues; officers observed movement toward the center console.
Officers removed Holman, discovered his suspended license and prior felony, arrested him, and during a vehicle search found a handgun in the center console.
Witnesses (Mr. Holman and Ms. Hunter) testified they saw Ms. Stevenson remove a gun from her purse and place it in the console; Ms. Stevenson initially claimed ownership at the scene.
Officers testified Holman made inconsistent statements about the gun (attributing it to a cousin, to Ms. Stevenson, or to a person named Tez) and admitted his fingerprints would be on the gun; Holman denied knowing about or possessing the gun at trial.
The jury convicted Holman of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Class C felony); the trial court affirmed the verdict and this appeal challenges sufficiency of the evidence.

Issue	State's Argument	Holman’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Was evidence sufficient to prove felon-in-possession beyond a reasonable doubt?	Evidence (officer observations, gun in console, Holman’s inconsistent statements, admission fingerprints would be on gun, prior felony) permits a reasonable jury to find constructive possession and at least reckless awareness.	Holman denied knowledge/possession and pointed to testimony that Ms. Stevenson owned the gun and placed it in the console.	Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to State, a rational juror could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Constructive possession and mental state: Could jury infer dominion/control and requisite culpable mental state from circumstantial evidence?	Constructive possession can be proven by knowing power and intent to exercise control; recklessness or knowledge suffices and may be inferred from circumstances and statements.	Holman argued lack of knowledge/ownership; witnesses placed gun with Stevenson.	Affirmed — circumstantial evidence and Holman’s statements support inference of at least recklessness and constructive possession.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (treats circumstantial and direct evidence equivalently on sufficiency review)
State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850 (circumstantial evidence can support conviction)
State v. Shaw, 37 S.W.3d 900 (defines actual vs. constructive possession)
State v. Copeland, 677 S.W.2d 471 (constructive possession requires knowing power and intention to exercise dominion)