COMMONWEALTH vs. ANGEL MONTALVO, FEBRUARY 25, 2010, Appeals Court
Sufficiency of evidence, Possession
The defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of constructive possession of cocaine and of heroin. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to establish constructive possession of cocaine, but not of heroin. The court found ample evidence that the defendant knew that there were drugs in the apartment, that he was in close proximity to drugs and packaging materials, and that he had the ability and intent to exercise control over at least some of the cocaine in the apartment. Important factors in finding sufficient evidence included the location of the defendant and the drugs (together in one room, drugs in plain sight near the defendant) as well as the fact that the house in which the defendant and drugs were found was a “hot house” (such that it had “New York style” locks, was heavily barricaded, and there were few indicators of occupancy). The court emphasized that the evidentiary inference to support a conviction need not be inescapable or necessary, but just that the evidentiary record as a whole supports a conclusion of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
While there was sufficient evidence regarding the cocaine conviction, the court did not find the same ample evidence regarding the constructive possession of heroin. The appellate court found that there was no way to infer the defendant’s knowledge of or control over the heroin based on the apparently invisibility of the heroin to the defendant when the police entered the house. The defendant’s conviction of constructive possession therefore was vacated.
Sufficiency of Evidence; Intent to Distribute
The defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of intent to distribute cocaine, and the appellate court agreed, finding insufficient evidence of intent. Because there were none of the common factors used in the assessment of intent to distribute, such as large quantities of drugs, the absence of implements for personal use, and the presence of cash and pagers, the court found that the jury must have used guesswork – and not proper inferences – to convict the defendant. The appellate court accordingly reversed the defendant’s intent to distribute conviction.
Sufficiency of Evidence; Joint Venture
The defendant contended that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of participation in a joint venture to sell drugs, and the appellate court agreed. The court found that there was no evidence that linked the defendant to a common venture with the other individuals arrested in the house. The fact that the defendant was found in the house with other individuals engaging in drug sells was not sufficient and accordingly the court reversed the conviction.
