Commonwealth v. Jerold Humphries, May 13, 2010
76 Mass. App. Ct. 702
The defendant appealed two drug offense convictions, arguing that his motion for a required finding of not guilty after the Commonwealth’s case in chief should have been allowed. The Appeals Court concluded that the evidence of constructive possession was insufficient to support his conviction and reversed.A quantity of drugs had been found in an apartment with few personal effects, excepting the defendant’s Massachusetts identification card and an envelope addressed to the defendant at a different address.
The defendant argued his motion for a required finding of not guilty should had been granted because the evidence failed to link him with the drugs found. The defendant was not present at the time of the search and the evidence was insufficient to show that he exercised any control of the apartment or its contents. The evidence also did not establish constructive possession because records for the identification card and mail did not indicate where there found or if they were proximately related to the drugs.
The Court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence under the Latimore standard. “To convict a defendant on a theory of constructive possession, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge of the contraband, coupled with the ability and intention to exercise dominion and control over it.” The Court held that the identification card and the envelope did not prove the requisite defendant knowledge of the drugs, nor the intent and ability to exercise dominion by the defendant. The defendant was not present and there was no evidence of the defendant’s dominion over the apartment or its contents. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the motion for required finding should have been allowed and reversed the judgments of the trial court.
76 Mass. App. Ct. 702
The defendant appealed two drug offense convictions, arguing that his motion for a required finding of not guilty after the Commonwealth’s case in chief should have been allowed. The Appeals Court concluded that the evidence of constructive possession was insufficient to support his conviction and reversed.A quantity of drugs had been found in an apartment with few personal effects, excepting the defendant’s Massachusetts identification card and an envelope addressed to the defendant at a different address.
The defendant argued his motion for a required finding of not guilty should had been granted because the evidence failed to link him with the drugs found. The defendant was not present at the time of the search and the evidence was insufficient to show that he exercised any control of the apartment or its contents. The evidence also did not establish constructive possession because records for the identification card and mail did not indicate where there found or if they were proximately related to the drugs.
The Court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence under the Latimore standard. “To convict a defendant on a theory of constructive possession, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge of the contraband, coupled with the ability and intention to exercise dominion and control over it.” The Court held that the identification card and the envelope did not prove the requisite defendant knowledge of the drugs, nor the intent and ability to exercise dominion by the defendant. The defendant was not present and there was no evidence of the defendant’s dominion over the apartment or its contents. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the motion for required finding should have been allowed and reversed the judgments of the trial court.
