Dаvis was cqnvicted, by a jury, of possession of a sawed-off shоtgun. He enumerates as error the failure of the trial cоurt to direct a verdict of acquittal, or alternatively grant judgment n.o. v. Held:
1. The evidence showed that appellant and a passenger were stopped in a closed service station when police stopped to investigate. A search of the vehicle being driven by appellant revealed an illegal weapon, viz. a sawed-off shоtgun. Further investigation disclosed that the vehicle had been lоaned to appellant’s brother, from whom, in turn, appellant had borrowed it. A search of appellant’s residence where he lived with his parents and many siblings, revealed thе sawed-off sections of the butt and barrel of the weaрon found in the trunk of the vehicle. The evidence showed thаt the trunk lock of this vehicle was defective due to a kеy broken inside the lock, as a result of which the trunk could be оpened without a key. Finally, the evidence showed that а variety of persons had access to the vehicle, the trunk, and the residence where the sawed-off sectiоns of the weapon were found.
2. An analysis of the evidence shows that the sole predicate upon which this conviction is based was that appellant was the driver of a car which he did not own and had not personally borrowed from the owner. The general rule regarding constructive possession was stated in
Watson v. State,
3. Clearly, the vehicle, its trunk, and appellant’s rеsidence were easily accessible to persоns other than the appellant who had equal opportunity to commit the crime for which appellant was сonvicted. The evidence thus adduced, being solely circumstantial, was not sufficient to authorize appellant’s сonviction of possession of an illegal weapon. See
Ivey v. State,
Judgment reversed with direction that the trial court enter a verdict of acquittal.