Appellee-defendant was convicted of knowingly possessing a controlled substance, 1 manufacturing with intent to deliver a controlled substance 2 and criminal conspiracy 3 in a non-jury trial on October 25, 1976. On December 22, 1976, post-verdict motions were argued. Defendant’s Motion In Arrest of Judgment was granted, and it is the subject of this appeal by the Commonwealth. The argument presented by the Commonwealth is that the evidence presented at trial was clearly sufficient to prove defendant’s joint constructive possession of contraband.
The Commonwealth in order to prove joint constructive possession had to prove; 1) the power to control and, 2) the intent to exercise joint control on the part of the appellee.
See Commonwealth v. Samuels,
In the instant case, the Commonwealth established that the Appellee resided in the apartment with his wife and children. He was present in the apartment at the time of the search. The contraband was found in plain view in a
*255
box on the mantle in the bedroom, and also in dresser drawers, which contained men and women’s clothing. Appellee had easy access to the contraband. Before going with the police, appellee put on clothes which he secured from the bedroom. Mail, delivered to him at the Chelten Avenue address, was also found in the bedroom. The correspondence represented Internal Revenue and bank mail which lends an indicia of reliability to the address given. These circumstances meet the standards of
Cash, Samuels,
and
Commonwealth v. Maurer,
The Commonwealth was not bound to prove that appellee exerted more control over the premises than his wife, but rather, that he exerted joint control, and had equal access both to the apartment and the contraband.
See Commonwealth v. Chenet,
The order arresting the Judgment is reversed and the appellee-defendant is directed to appear for sentencing at such time as the lower court shall determine.