Title: Commonwealth v. Dagraca-Teixeira

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-11754 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs.  JASON DAGRACA-TEIXEIRA 
(and a companion case1). 
 
 
 
March 16, 2015 
 
 
 
Firearms.  Controlled Substances.  Evidence, Firearm, 
Constructive possession, Inference.  Search and Seizure, 
Warrant. 
 
 
 
 
The defendants, Jason Dagraca-Teixeira (Jason) and Adilson 
Teixeira (Adilson), were convicted of possession of heroin, 
G. L. c. 94C, § 34;2 unlawful possession of a firearm, G. L. 
c. 269, § 10 (h); and unlawful possession of ammunition, G. L. 
c. 269, § 10 (h) (1).  On appeal, the defendants argued, among 
other things, that the evidence supporting their convictions was 
insufficient.  A panel of the Appeals Court affirmed the 
convictions.  Commonwealth v. Dagraca-Teixeira, 85 Mass. App. 
Ct. 1126 (2014).  We granted the defendants' applications for 
further appellate review, limited to the issue of the 
sufficiency of the evidence.  See Commonwealth v. Dagraca-
Teixeira, 469 Mass. 1110 (2014). 
 
 
We hold that there was sufficient evidence supporting the 
convictions of possession of heroin, but that the Commonwealth 
                     
 
1 Commonwealth vs. Adilson Teixeira. 
 
 
2 The defendants were charged with possession of heroin with 
intent to distribute, G. L. c. 94C, § 32 (a).  The jury found 
the defendants guilty of the lesser included offense of 
possession of heroin. 
2 
 
did not present sufficient evidence to establish possession of 
the firearms and ammunition beyond a reasonable doubt.  We 
therefore affirm in part and reverse in part. 
 
 
We review the essential evidence in the light most 
favorable to the Commonwealth.  At approximately 11 P.M. on an 
evening in November, 2011, six Taunton police officers executed 
a search warrant for a second-floor apartment on Wales Street in 
Taunton.  They entered through an open door and found eight to 
ten people inside, including Adilson.  The officers secured the 
apartment and its occupants.  One of the officers searched 
Adilson and found $340 in cash in his pocket.  While the 
officers were present, Jason arrived with an unidentified woman.  
An officer searched him and found $375 in cash and a key. 
 
 
The search of the apartment included three bedrooms located 
off a short interior hallway.  Jason's key fit the lock of one 
of the bedrooms.  In that bedroom, an officer found a small bag 
containing a substance believed to be heroin, along with Jason's 
baptismal certificate, a cellular telephone, and scales.  During 
the search of a second bedroom, another officer found two small 
bags of what appeared to be the same substance found in the 
first bedroom, along with twenty-nine dollars in cash, on a 
table with Adilson's birth certificate and other documents.  A 
woman's jacket was hanging on the door to the bedroom closet.  
Inside a zippered pocket, in the jacket, officers found $200 in 
cash and a plastic bag containing ten smaller bags of the same 
substance as on the table.  At trial, the defendants stipulated 
to the fact that the substance in the various bags found in 
these bedrooms was heroin.  No contraband was found in the third 
bedroom. 
 
 
In the ceiling of the common hallway was a small, sealed 
hatch to an attic.  The attic was accessible only through the 
hatch.  To gain entry, one of the officers pushed in the hatch 
door and was boosted up by the other officers.  There was no 
ladder or pull-down stairs leading to the attic.  The officer 
testified that, on entering the attic, he sat on the edge of the 
opening.  He eventually noticed a small plastic shopping bag 
wedged between the ceiling joists and the insulation.  The 
officer removed the bag and found that it contained two loaded 
handguns.  He did not testify to finding anything else in the 
attic. 
 
 
Possession of heroin.  The Commonwealth presented ample 
evidence to support the defendants' drug convictions.  Their 
presence in the apartment plus the evidence of their personal 
3 
 
documents found in the respective bedrooms, in direct proximity 
to the heroin, was more than sufficient to establish possession.  
Commonwealth v. Pratt, 407 Mass. 647, 652 (1990). 
 
 
Possession of firearms and ammunition.  Because the loaded 
guns were concealed in the attic, the issue before us is the 
sufficiency of the evidence to support the Commonwealth's theory 
of constructive possession.  Constructive possession requires 
proof of "knowledge coupled with the ability and intention to 
exercise dominion and control."  Commonwealth v. Brzezinski, 405 
Mass. 401, 409 (1989), quoting Commonwealth v. Rosa, 17 Mass. 
App. Ct. 495, 498 (1984).  See Commonwealth v. Deagle, 10 Mass. 
App. Ct. 563, 567-568 (1980), and cases cited.  This proof "may 
be established by circumstantial evidence, and the inferences 
that can be drawn therefrom."  Brzezinski, supra, quoting 
Commonwealth v. LaPerle, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 424, 426 (1985).  
However, "[p]resence alone cannot show the requisite knowledge, 
power, or intention to exercise control over the [contraband], 
but presence, supplemented by other incriminating evidence, 
'will serve to tip the scale in favor of sufficiency.'"  
Commonwealth v. Albano, 373 Mass. 132, 134 (1977), quoting 
United States v. Birmley, 529 F.2d 103, 108 (6th Cir. 1976). 
 
 
Because they had access to the attic, it reasonably can be 
inferred that the defendants had the "ability" to exercise 
control over items located there.  Brzezinski, supra at 409-410.  
The dispositive question, however, is whether the Commonwealth 
provided sufficient evidence of their "knowledge" of the 
concealed firearms and "intention" to exercise such control.  
Id.  The mere fact that the attic was above the bedrooms, 
without any evidence that it was directly accessible through the 
bedrooms, was insufficient, without more, to support an 
inference that the defendants had the requisite knowledge of the 
contents of the attic and an intention to exercise control of 
the contents.  The attic was equally accessible to all occupants 
of the apartment, and not uniquely accessible to the occupants 
of the bedrooms. 
 
 
None of the evidence presented showed a connection between 
the defendants and anything in the attic, let alone to the 
firearms and ammunition concealed there.  Conversely, the search 
of the bedrooms and the common living areas uncovered nothing 
establishing the defendants' connection to the weapons.  See 
Commonwealth v. Caraballo, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 616, 618-620 (1992) 
(no constructive possession where defendant stood in common 
hallway immediately outside his apartment next to chair above 
which bags of cocaine were concealed in ceiling).  Contrast 
4 
 
Commonwealth v. Montanez, 410 Mass. 290, 305-306 (1991) 
(possession where drugs were concealed in ceiling of common 
hallway immediately outside defendant's apartment and were 
packaged in same type of materials as drugs found in his 
apartment).  No known possessions of the defendants were found 
in the attic; indeed, there was no evidence that the defendants 
had ever been in the attic.  There was also no evidence that 
police officers observed the defendants engaged in any 
suspicious activity relating to firearms and ammunition,3 and no 
evidence that any other firearms, ammunition, or gun 
paraphernalia were found in the bedrooms or common living areas 
of the apartment.  Nor was there any suggestion that the 
defendants displayed any consciousness of guilt in reaction to 
the search of the attic.  Cf. Brzezinski, supra at 410.  Thus, 
the evidence was insufficient to support a conclusion beyond a 
reasonable doubt that the defendants constructively possessed 
the firearms and ammunition concealed in the attic. 
 
 
Conclusion.  The convictions of possession of heroin are 
affirmed.  The convictions of unlawful possession of firearms 
and ammunition are reversed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
 
 
Travis J. Jacobs for Jason Dagraca-Teixeira. 
 
Jacob B. Stone for Adilson Teixeira. 
 
Yul-mi Cho, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth. 
 
                     
 
3 We have held in other contexts that evidence of illegal 
drug activity does not necessarily warrant a conclusion -- even 
under a reasonable suspicion or probable cause standard -- that 
illegal weapons are present.  See Commonwealth v. Gomes, 453 
Mass. 506, 512-513 (2009); Commonwealth v. Jimenez, 438 Mass. 
213, 220 (2002).  Moreover, in acquitting the defendants of 
possession with intent to distribute, the jury appear to have 
rejected the notion that the defendants were engaged in large-
scale drug activity.  See note 2, supra.