Background

• Gonsalves was convicted of misconduct involving weapons under A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4) based on his status as a prohibited possessor and an accomplice who held a firearm during the robbery.
• The central question is whether a defendant can be found in constructive possession of a firearm when his accomplice has exclusive possession during the offense.
• Arizona law defines possession to include actual possession or dominion/control, allowing joint constructive possession by multiple participants.
• Surveillance shows Gonsalves and his accomplice followed the victim, approached him, and the accomplice held the gun while Gonsalves robbed him.
• The victim identified Gonsalves in a photo lineup; the parties stipulated that Gonsalves had a prior felony and no right to possess a firearm.
• The State argued for constructive possession based on knowledge of the gun and joint control; the defense argued there was no possession since the gun was held solely by the accomplice.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• State v. Barreras, 112 Ariz. 421 (1975) (definition of possession as actual or dominion/control)
• State v. Chabolla-Hinojosa, 192 Ariz. 360 (App.1998) (constructive possession via dominion/control)
• State v. Bustamante, 229 Ariz. 256 (App.2012) (essentiality of the gun to the offense; knowledge & control required)
• State v. Cox, 217 Ariz. 353 (2007) (knowledge of guns in vehicle and control over them)
• State v. Villalobos Alvarez, 155 Ariz. 244 (App.1987) (specific facts showing dominion/control needed)
• State v. Coley, 158 Ariz. 471 (App.1988) (constructive possession where weapon known and intended for offense)
• United States v. Perez, 661 F.3d 568 (11th Cir.2011) (joint possession where firearms were essential to robbery)
• United States v. McCraney, 612 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir.2010) (circumstantial evidence supports joint possession when accomplice holds weapon)