You are here: / CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION

Tag Archive for: CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION

,

Evidence of Constructive Possession of Contraband Insufficient, Convictions Reversed

The defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana and weapons found in a bedroom of an apartment in which defendant and several others were present. The Second Department determined there was insufficient evidence that defendant constructively possessed the contraband and reversed:

The element of constructive possession may be established, inter alia, where it is shown that the defendant exercised ” dominion or control'” over the property by exercising a sufficient level of control over the place where the contraband is found or over the person from whom the contraband is seized … . “Constructive possession may be established by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence with inferences drawn from the facts presented in the case” … . “Where . . . the prosecution relies wholly upon circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, the circumstances must be satisfactorily established and must be of such a character as, if true, to exclude to a moral certainty every other hypothesis except that of the accused’s guilt” … .

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People …, it was legally insufficient to establish the possession elements of the weapons possession and marijuana possession counts, as charged here. Although the defendant was present in the apartment when the search warrant was executed, “it is settled that one’s mere presence in an apartment or house where contraband is found does not constitute sufficient basis for a finding of constructive possession” … . There was no evidence specifically connecting the defendant to the bedroom where the contraband was found, or otherwise connecting the defendant to the contraband. Under these specific circumstances, the People failed to prove that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the contraband, and therefore failed to prove the possession element of the counts as charged … . People v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 08428. 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

,

Pedigree Question “Where Do You Reside,” Under the Circumstances, Was Designed to Elicit an Incriminating Response, the Answer, Therefore, Should Have Been Suppressed; New Trial on Possessory Counts Ordered

The Fourth Department ordered a new trial on the drug possession and drug paraphernalia counts. Defendant was convicted based upon a “constructive possession” theory (i.e., possession of contraband based upon defendant’s dominion and control over the premises where the contraband is found). As police officers were conducting a search, and as defendant was handcuffed and lying on the floor, an officer asked defendant where he resided. Defendant answered “here.” The People relied heavily on defendant’s answer to prove constructive possession of contraband found on the premises. Under these circumstances, the pedigree question (where do you reside) was designed to elicit an incriminating response and, because the statement was “unwarned,” the answer should have been suppressed:

Generally, a defendant’s answer concerning his address, when “elicited through routine administrative questioning that [is] not designed to elicit an incriminating response” … , will be considered pedigree information not subject to CPL 710.30 notice requirements even if the statement later proves to be inculpatory … . That is “[b]ecause responses to routine booking questions—pedigree questions . . . —are not suppressible even when obtained in violation of Miranda [and, therefore, a] defendant lacks a constitutional basis upon which to challenge the voluntariness of his [or her] statement” … . “[W]here there is no question of voluntariness, the People are not required to serve defendant with notice” … .

As the Court of Appeals recognized, however, “the People may not rely on the pedigree exception if the questions, though facially appropriate, are likely to elicit incriminating admissions because of the circumstances of the particular case” (id.). Although the question concerning defendant’s address appears to have been a facially appropriate question, we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case and, more specifically, under the circumstances in which the question was asked, the question was likely to elicit an incriminating admission and had a “necessary connection to an essential element of [the possessory] crimes charged” under Penal Law §§ 220.16 and 220.50 (2) … . We agree with defendant that the error in admitting that statement cannot be considered harmless insofar as it relates to the possessory counts of the indictment inasmuch as the People relied heavily on that statement to establish defendant’s constructive possession of the drugs and drug paraphernalia … . People v Slade, 2015 NY Slip Op 08252, 4th Dept 11-13-15

 

,

“Constructive Possession” Theory Applied to Weapon Deemed to Have Been Discarded by Defendant During a Police Pursuit

The Third Department determined there was sufficient evidence defendant constructively possessed a weapon which was found near him after the police saw him discard something during a pursuit:

Constructive possession can be demonstrated where there is evidence — either direct or circumstantial — that defendant exercised “dominion and control over the weapon or the area in which it was found” … . The People presented testimonial evidence of several police officers, including Gregory McGee, who averred that, after hearing a gun shot during his overnight shift, his investigation led him to observe defendant turning a street corner on a bicycle. When defendant saw McGee’s marked police car, he became visibly nervous and immediately clutched the right side of his waistband. Believing that defendant was armed, McGee exited his vehicle, drew his firearm and ordered defendant to show his hands. Defendant refused to comply with the directive and a physical encounter ensued. As McGee holstered his handgun and attempted to grab his taser, defendant fled on his bicycle. McGee then radioed for assistance while pursuing defendant on foot and a responding police officer, Jason Seward, pulled his patrol car onto the sidewalk in order to block defendant. McGee testified that, as defendant ran around the patrol car, he observed defendant’s hand emerge from under his sweatshirt and throw something, which created a sound of “metal hitting the ground.” As Seward continued to pursue defendant, McGee found a handgun on the sidewalk a few feet from Seward’s patrol car. Shortly thereafter, defendant was apprehended and the handgun was later confirmed to contain three rounds of “live” ammunition and one spent shell casing, indicating that the handgun had been fired once.

… “[V]iewing the evidence in a neutral light and according deference to the jury’s credibility determinations,” we find that defendant had constructive possession of the gun such that the conviction was not contrary to the weight of the evidence … . People v Butler, 2015 NY Slip Op 105216, 3rd Dept, 3-12-15

 

,

Proof Requirements for Constructive Possession of Contraband Explained

The Third Department explained the criteria for constructive possession.  The fact that others might have access to the contraband does not disprove constructive possession, contraband can be possessed jointly with others:

“Where, as here, the People proceed upon the theory of constructive possession, they bear the burden of establishing that defendant exercised dominion and control over the contraband or the area where the contraband was found”… . Such possession may be shown through direct or circumstantial evidence, and does not require proof that no one else had access to the contraband or the premises … . While mere presence in the same location where contraband is found does not prove constructive possession …, the evidence here established that defendant–who was wearing only boxer shorts when he was found and identified one of the bedrooms where contraband was found as the one where he kept his clothes and belongings–was not merely present in the residence by happenstance at the time of the search, but lived there. When found, he was lying in close proximity to the laundry basket that contained the disassembled weapon, as though he had just placed it there. Further, shortly before the search, he had been seen in physical possession of a weapon by witnesses who identified him as the individual who fired a black handgun in the direction of a vehicle, and, later on the day of the shooting, another witness saw him holding a black semiautomatic pistol. Accordingly, the evidence went beyond defendant’s mere presence in the residence at the time of the search and established “a particular set of circumstances from which a jury could infer possession” of the contraband … . The fact that some of the contraband was found in defendant’s brother’s bedroom and other parts of the house to which family members also had access does not preclude a finding of constructive possession, as such possession may be joint, and all of the items were “readily accessible and available” to defendant… . People v McGough, 2014 NY Slip Op 08269, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

,

“Drug Factory” Presumption re: Possession of Drugs to Which the Defendant Is In “Close Proximity” Does Not Apply to A Defendant Who Is Arrested Outside the Building Where the Drugs Are Located and Who Was Not Trying to Escape/Where a Jury Is Instructed It Can Consider Two Different Theories of Possession, and One of Those Theories Should Not Have Been Available for the Jury’s Consideration, the Relevant Convictions Must Be Reversed—the Jury Could Have Based Its Verdict on the Erroneously-Charged Theory

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that the trial judge should not have allowed the jury to consider whether the defendant, who was arrested outside the apartment, was in “close proxity” to the cocaine in the apartment.  Penal Law 220.25(2) creates a presumption that persons in “close proximity” to drugs that are being mixed or packaged possesses those drugs (the so-called “drug factory” presumption). The trial judge also instructed the jury they could consider whether the defendant constructively possessed the drugs by virtue of his control over the area where the drugs were found.  Because it can not be determined whether the jury based its verdict on the erroneous “drug factory” charge or the correct “constructive possession” charge, the relevant convictions were reversed and a new trial ordered.  The Court of Appeals went through all the scenarios which have been held to constitute “close proximity” to drugs and concluded that where a defendant is outside the structure where the drugs are located and is not in the process of fleeing, the “drug factory” presumption does not apply:

…[T]he presumption may apply even in cases where a defendant has exited the premises, when the defendant is caught in immediate flight, or apprehended fleeing the premises “upon the sudden appearance of the police” … . We need not determine on this appeal how far from the premises defendant may be apprehended and still be subject to the presumption. We note, however, that the boundary in these cases is not limitless. Suffice it to say, that each incremental enlargement of the distance between the defendant and the premises where the drugs are found tests the underlying justification of the presumption, and makes it susceptible to challenge. …

Applying these principles to the record before us, we conclude that defendant was not in close proximity to the drugs when they were found within the meaning of section 220.25(2). He was not in the room where the drugs were found, in an adjacent room within the same apartment, or in a “closet, bathroom or other convenient recess[].” Nor was he found immediately outside the premises while trying to escape.  People v Kims, 2014 NY Slip Op 07196, CtApp 10-23-14

 

Exclusive Access Not Required for Constructive Possession

The Third Department determined the proof of constructive possession of a weapon was sufficient.  The gun was found in a boot outside the door to the apartment where defendant lived.  He had been seen entering the building with a gun. The court noted that exclusive access to the area where contraband is found is not required to sustain a finding of constructive possession:

Constructive possession can be established by evidence that the defendant had dominion and control over the weapon or the area in which it was found … . Exclusive access, however, is not required to sustain a finding of constructive possession … . Here, the People established that defendant resided in the first-floor apartment with his girlfriend and their young son, and the loaded handgun was found in a man’s boot located in a hallway leading to that apartment among shoes belonging to defendant’s girlfriend and his son. The only other tenant in the building was an elderly woman who lived on the second floor. Although defendant denied ownership of the boots, he admitted that he kept some of his belongings in the hallway, and the People established the presence of his DNA on the weapon. The rational inferences to be drawn from this evidence are sufficient to support the conclusion that defendant exercised dominion and control over the weapon and the area in which it was found … . People v Bellamy, 2014 NY Slip Op 04262, 3rd Dept 6-12-14

 

,

No Element of Intent in Constructive Possession of Contraband

The First Department determined there was no “intent” element to the constructive possession of contraband.  The marijuana and stun gun at issue were in an apartment defendant shared with his aunt and nephew. The defendant argued that, even if he was fully aware the items were in the apartment, the People were required to prove that he intended to exercise dominion and control over them.  The court wrote:

In defendant’s view, even if he was fully aware that there was contraband in the apartment he shared with his aunt and nephew, and even if he had unfettered control over the areas where the contraband was located, he was not guilty of possessing it since he merely tolerated his drug-dealing nephew’s use of the apartment as a repository for the contraband and had nothing else to do with it. We disagree.

There is no element of intent in constructive possession. A long line of authority makes clear that knowing constructive possession of tangible property is established where the People prove knowledge that the property is present and “a sufficient level of control over the area in which the contraband [was] found” … People v Rodriguez, 2013 NY Slip Op 06495, 1st Dept 10-8-13

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy