Opinion by
In this action the Commonwealth appeals from an Order of the lower court granting a post-trial motion in
In an appeal by the Commonwealth from the grant of a motion in arrest of judgment, following a finding of guilt on the charges by a jury, we must determine whether the evidence offered by the Commonwealth, at trial, was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Commonwealth v. Froelich,
When the defendant is charged with illegal possession of contraband, the evidence must show that appellant had a conscious dominion over the contraband. Commonwealth v. Davis,
Our review of the record shows a coalescence of many factors to evidence the guilt of the appellee. On April 10, 1974, officers of the Pittsburgh Police, pоssessed of a search warrant, gained entry to the one-bedroom apartment of Calvin Cash. The appellee was alone in the premises. During the еnsuing search the appellee became hysterical and had a physical confrontation with the police; during this time she also made an unsuccessful attempt to flee. During the course of the search, the police discovered a large quantity
The appellee had contended at a suppression hearing prior to trial, and again at her trial, that her name was not Ruth Cash, that she did not reside in the aрartment or have clothing there, and that she only dated Calvin Cash and visited his apartment on infrequent occasions. She further testified she was only visiting on the night of the sеarch.
The Commonwealth’s strongest evidence was offered in rebuttal to such contentions. An undercover officer testified he had visited the apartment оnly ten days prior to the search and made a purchase of marijuana from Calvin Cash in the presence of appellee. Appellee, at this time, furnished the undercover officer, his police-informant companion, and Calvin Cash with glasses to drink wine. After the purchase, the informant stated a desire to roll a marijuana cigarette and the appellee furnished him with cigarette rolling paper to accomplish his task. On this occasion, Calvin Cash introduсed the appellee as “my old lady”; he did not refer to her by name. However, others clearly identified her by that name. The custodians for the building testified that appellee had signed the apartment lease by the name “Ruth Ann Cash.” She was seen on a daily basis in the apartment building by such witnesses, who knew her by that name. She hаd, to their knowledge, hung curtains in the apartment and possessed keys to it. Moreover, appellee signed a receipt for confiscated property and her bail papers with the name Ruth Cash. While searching the apartment, the police saw various documents, including telephone bills, indicating Ruth Cash resided in the apartment. Subsequent to her arrest, the appellee returned to the apartment and removed clothing and stereo equipment. While appellee denied living in the apartment or knowing of the women’s clothes found there, the jury heard evidence that just after the search, the appellee visited the bedroom and
Thus, the evidence before the jury indicated strongly that the appellee was untruthful in her assertions that she was not known as Ruth Cash and did not reside in the apartment. Second, the jury was aware that there was evidence that her clothing and jewelry was found in the same place where a great quantity of drugs was kept. In addition, the evidence was presented that appellee had been present at the time of a drug sale only days before the search and herself possessed cigarette papers, which she provided to another for the purpose of rolling a marijuana cigarette. This provided strong evidence of the knowledge element оf the crime charged. Besides Calvin Cash and the appellee, no others were known to have access to the one bedroom-one closеt apartment, which was in a “security type” building with locks on outer doors as well as all apartment doors.
Based upon all of these factors, we believe the evidence was more than sufficient to support the verdict of the jury. Knowledge of the presence of the contraband and intent to exercisе control can be inferred from the totality of the circumstances presented, and even mere presence is certainly a factor. Commonwealth v. Carter, supra; see also the dicta of the Court in Commonwealth v. Davis, supra,
The Order of the lower court is reversed, the jury verdict reinstated, and the case is remanded for imposition of sentence.
Notes
. The evidence showed the heroin, valued by an expert at $200,000.00 was sufficient to constitute almost twenty thousand doses or “hits.”
. Such paraphernalia included plastic bags, glassine bags, a scale, and a blender, all bearing a residue of drugs.