*1
Decided June *2 appellant. Havey, Aliquippa, for Alan John McMillen, Anthony Berosh, Asst. Dist. J. Keith R. Beaver, Atty., appellee. for ROBERTS, EAGEN, J., O’BRIEN, C. and
Before MANDERINO, POMEROY, and JJ. NIX THE OF COURT OPINION O’BRIEN, Justice. by a Chenet, tried was
Appellant, P. Richard pos of County convicted jury in Beaver judge and post- Appellant filed substance. of a controlled session judg trial arrest new motions for a verdict trial, new granted en The court banc ment. Court, by judgment. The to arrest but refused court en vote, the order affirmed a four-three judgment.1 Com denying motion in arrest banc Chenet, Pa.Super. monwealth ap (1975). Appellant petition for allowance filed a 26,1976. peal, granted on March which this court to sustain Appellant insufficient the evidence is claims *3 the both the Court his conviction and that refusing in arrest en in his motion banc erred court therefore, agree and, and dis- judgment. reverse We charge appellant. reviewing a motion in arrest a denial of
When evi judgment, we must view all of the Commonwealth’s to light dence the most favorable introduced at trial in the all inferences there Commonwealth with reasonable Terenda, 519, 252 433 A.2d from. Commonwealth Pa. by (1969). 635 The evidence introduced the Common wealth is as follows. 19, deputy May 1973, County three sheriffs
On Beaver appellant’s Upon trailer. obtained a search warrant for park, the arrival at trailer the sheriffs found the trailer p. m., appel- locked and had to wait until when 10:20 girlfriend. lant’s roommate A arrived with his search up marijuana floor, turned a few seeds on the kitchen recently interlocutory deny- 1. We have made clear that an order ing judgment, a motion in arrest of based on a claim of insuffi- evidence, granted, appealable. cient when a new has trial been Liddick, 523, 729, (1977). Commonwealth v. 471 2 Pa. n. 184 living- ashtray in the cigarette in
marijuana butts an containing marijuana the residue “baggie” room and a approximately 80 then found livingroom. officers The to delivery marijuana milk attached in a box grams of p. 11:30 completed at The was search the trailer hitch. m. m., a. deputies trailer until 1:15 remained at the
The appellant, arresting After arrived. when permission to search sought officers were refused driving. second appellant had A the automobile been thorough two searches after warrant was obtained and marijuana cigarettes in car, of the the officers found two car, however, the front seats. The the console between picked belonged attorney. Appellant appellant’s had to only in- up repair Appellant it. was the car charged possession of the contraband. dividual with over trial, introduced contraband was At all seized objection. appellant’s violating 780-
Appellant convicted of P.S. was 35 § 113, states, which inter alia :
“(a) following causing thereof The acts and hereby prohibited: within the Commonwealth are [*] # Jfc sfc % v # intentionally “(16) Knowingly possessing con or trolled . . . . . . substance 368-369, Fortune, In Commonwealth v. 456 Pa. (1974), we stated: *4 illegal possession the is “When contraband charged, appellant the establish that the evidence must a over the Com- had conscious dominion contraband. Davis, 11, (1971). v. 280 monwealth 444 Pa. A.2d 119 illegal possession drugs The is crime of narcotic a ‘by very unique which its is the nature to individual. By person definition, possessor only the is the who Marijuana § is defined as a P.S. controlled substance in 35 780-104(l)(iv).
185 by this crime. Guilt association could commit Reece, unacceptable.’ Commonwealth v. . is 463, (1970). 422, 427, A.2d 466 See also 437 Pa. 263 Tirpak, 534, Commonwealth 441 A.2d 476 Pa. 272 peo (1971). presence person group The of one in ple drug pos import at the scene ‘is not of critical [supra, session cases.’ Commonwealth v. 437 Reece Pa. at 427, [463] at 466]. See also Common Tirpak possession [supra]. wealth v. ‘[T]he fact of persuasiveness persons the loses all other than ac if equal place to in which cused had access ... the property the Common was discovered. . . .’ Davis, 119, wealth v. 444 Pa. (1971), quoting (3d Wigmore, ed. 9 J. Evidence § 1940). charged illegal posses When the crime the drugs, presence person sion of narcotic the of a at the scene, totality without a consideration of circumstances, prove (Emphasis does not the crime.” added.) marijuana
The found in and around the was in trailer livingroom, immediately kitchen and outside area ad- jacent equally to the trailer. All of these areas were ac- appellant’s girlfriend. cessible to and his No roommate marijuana appellant’s appel- was found in room on nor person. marijuana lant’s The found in the car which be- longed appellant’s to attorney only was the evidence implicate appellant. which could believe, however, We prove beyond Commonwealth has failed to a reason- doubt posses- able that knew about and inwas marijuana cigarettes sion of two party’s found in a third car.
We believe that all the Commonwealth’s evi dence, light reviewed in the most favorable to the Com monwealth, prove appellant’s guilt beyond fails a rea sonable doubt. *5 affirming of Superior order Court
Order County is reversed Pleas of Beaver of Common Court discharged. opinion. dissenting J., POMEROY, files a dissenting. Justice, POMEROY, cases, drug possession this, Recognizing like other that very question, presents close turns on its own facts majority agree with the Court I nevertheless a find- warrant sufficient here was that evidence possession in the defendant Chenet. ing of constructive respectfully I therefore dissent. Pennsylvania
COMMONWEALTH GALLO, Appellant. William Pennsylvania. Supreme Court Argued March 3, 1977. Decided June