COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Coleman, Elder and Senior Judge Cole 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

REGINALD DAVID VEST 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0803-99-3 JUDGE LARRY G. ELDER 

 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG 

Mosby G. Perrow, III, Judge 

 Joseph A. Sanzone (Sanzone & Baker, P.C., on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Jeffrey S. Shapiro, Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Reginald David Vest (appellant) appeals from his bench trial 

convictions for possession of a firearm while in possession of a 

controlled substance and possession of a firearm while possessing, 

with intent to distribute, more than one pound of marijuana 

pursuant to Code § 18.2-308.4, subsections (A) and (B), 

respectively.1 On appeal, he contends the evidence was 

insufficient to prove he constructively possessed the firearm he 

told officers was in his bedroom dresser drawer. We hold that the 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.

1

 Appellant also was convicted for possession of marijuana 

with intent to distribute and possession of cocaine. He does 

not challenge those convictions on appeal. 
only reasonable hypothesis flowing from the evidence--including 

the location of the weapon and appellant's statement to officers 

regarding its location--is that appellant constructively possessed 

the weapon. Therefore, we affirm his convictions. 

 Under familiar principles of appellate review, we examine 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible 

therefrom. See Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 

S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). The credibility of a witness, the 

weight accorded the testimony, and the inferences to be drawn 

from proven facts are matters solely for the fact finder's 

determination. See Long v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 194, 199, 

379 S.E.2d 473, 476 (1989). 

 The possession necessary to support a conviction for the 

simultaneous possession of marijuana and a firearm pursuant to 

Code § 18.2-308.4 may be actual or constructive. See, e.g., 

Logan v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 437, 444, 452 S.E.2d 364, 368 

(1994) (en banc). The principles applicable to determining 

whether a defendant constructively possessed drugs are equally 

applicable to determining whether he constructively possessed a 

firearm. See Blake v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 706, 708-09, 

427 S.E.2d 219, 220-21 (1993). Those principles require proof 

"that the defendant was aware of both the presence and character 

of the [item] and that it was subject to his dominion and 

- 2 -
control." Powers v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 474, 476, 316 S.E.2d 

739, 740 (1984). 

 Circumstantial evidence of possession is sufficient to 

support a conviction provided it excludes every reasonable 

hypothesis of innocence flowing from the evidence. See Hamilton 

v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 751, 755, 433 S.E.2d 27, 29 (1993). 

A person's ownership or occupancy of premises on which the 

subject item is found, proximity to the item, and statements or 

conduct concerning the location of the item are probative 

factors to be considered in determining whether the totality of 

the circumstances supports a finding of possession. See Archer 

v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 1, 12, 492 S.E.2d 826, 831-32 

(1997). Possession "need not always be exclusive. The 

defendant may share it with one or more." Josephs v. 

Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 87, 99, 390 S.E.2d 491, 497 (1990) (en

banc). 

 The only reasonable hypothesis flowing from the evidence in 

this case is that appellant was aware of the presence of the .25 

caliber semiautomatic pistol located in the dresser drawer in 

the bedroom he shared with his girlfriend and that it was 

subject to his dominion and control. When questioned by police 

regarding whether any weapons were in the house, appellant 

directed them to the pistol in the dresser and accurately 

reported that the pistol was loaded. Although appellant said 

the pistol belonged to his girlfriend, the trial court was 

- 3 -
entitled to reject the statement of appellant, who led police to 

a small amount of marijuana in his living room but originally 

lied about the presence of an additional two pounds of marijuana 

in his home. See Pugliese v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 82, 92, 

428 S.E.2d 16, 24 (1993). It also was entitled to reject the 

testimony of appellant's girlfriend that "he never messed with 

the gun," which it did expressly in finding that her testimony 

was not credible. See id. The remaining evidence, including 

the presence of the firearm "in [appellant's] house," coupled 

with his statement to "the police [that] they could find it in 

the [dresser drawer], . . . was sufficient . . . to establish 

that [appellant] had knowledge of the presence of the [firearm], 

and that [it] was subject to his dominion and control." Davis 

v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 728, 733, 406 S.E.2d 922, 924-25 

(1991) (upholding conviction for possession of marijuana where 

accused told police they would find it in his basement, despite 

presence in house of accused's wife and a friend who claimed at 

trial that the marijuana belonged to him rather than the 

accused) (emphasis added). The only reasonable hypothesis 

flowing from the evidence is that appellant exercised at least 

joint possession of the weapon. 

- 4 -
 We hold the evidence was sufficient to prove appellant 

constructively possessed the pistol, and we affirm the 

challenged convictions. 

Affirmed.

- 5 -