Opinion ID: 3055045
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: We review de novo whether there is sufficient evidence to support a jury’s verdict, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the verdict. United States v. Cochran, 683 F.3d 1314, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012). “A jury’s verdict cannot be overturned if any reasonable construction of the evidence would have allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Friske, 640 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). To sustain a conviction, “[t]he evidence need not be inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis except guilt, and the jury is free to choose between or 2 Case: 12-13088 Date Filed: 06/27/2013 Page: 3 of 10 among the reasonable conclusions to be drawn from the evidence presented at trial.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). In order to convict a defendant of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the government must prove that (1) the defendant was a convicted felon, (2) he knowingly possessed a firearm, and (3) the firearm was in or affected interstate commerce. United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832, 841 (11th Cir. 2009). Possession, which is the only element contested in this appeal, “may be actual or constructive, joint or sole.” United States v. Gunn, 369 F.3d 1229, 1234 (11th Cir. 2004). Constructive possession exists when a defendant “has knowledge of the thing possessed coupled with the ability to maintain control over it or reduce it to his physical possession even though he does not have actual personal dominion” over the object. United States v. Derose, 74 F.3d 1177, 1185 (11th Cir. 1996). “[M]ere presence in the area of an object or awareness of its location is not sufficient to establish possession.” Beckles, 565 F.3d at 841. However, we have held on numerous occasions that the government may establish constructive possession by showing that the defendant exercised ownership, dominion, or control over the object itself or over the premises or vehicle in which it is concealed. See e.g., United States v. Hernandez, 433 F.3d 1328, 1333 (11th Cir. 2005) (“Constructive possession exists when a defendant has ownership, dominion, or control over an object itself or dominion or control over the premises or vehicle 3 Case: 12-13088 Date Filed: 06/27/2013 Page: 4 of 10 in which the object is concealed.”) (quotation marks omitted); United States v. Wright, 392 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2004) (same); Gunn, 369 F.3d at 1234 (same); Derose, 74 F.3d at 1185 (same). The undisputed evidence presented at trial showed that Person was approached by a police officer just as he pulled over and parked his car outside his stepdaughter’s apartment. Because Person was playing his music quite loudly, the officer had decided to issue Person a citation for a noise violation. As the officer was drafting the citation he asked Person if there was anything illegal in the car that he should know about. Person responded that there was a pistol underneath the driver’s seat that belonged to his son, William Hall, who had been driving the car earlier that day. The officer then retrieved the pistol, which was loaded and not housed in a container, from underneath the driver’s seat. According to the trial testimony of Person’s stepdaughter, Marguerite Johnson, Hall was carrying the pistol earlier that day while driving his father’s car. 1 Person contends that the government failed to establish the element of possession by presenting sufficient evidence that he exercised ownership, 1 During the evidentiary hearing on his post-verdict motion for a new trial, Person testified that he was unaware that the pistol was underneath his car seat until mere moments before he was approached by the police officer. Person explained that he was on his way to a barbecue at his stepdaughter’s home and, as he reached down to pick up a pan of meat from the floor of his car, he noticed the gun beneath his driver’s seat. Person, however, did not testify at trial on his own behalf and there was no evidence presented to the jury to suggest that he only became aware of the firearm shortly before it was seized. Not surprisingly, Person does not contend that his post-verdict testimony is relevant to determining whether the evidence presented to the jury at trial was sufficient to support its verdict. 4 Case: 12-13088 Date Filed: 06/27/2013 Page: 5 of 10 dominion, or control over the firearm, instead of mere proximity to and knowledge of its whereabouts. Given the uncontradicted testimony offered at trial that his son physically possessed the pistol and was driving his car earlier that same day, Person argues that no reasonable jury could conclude that he himself possessed the firearm simply because he controlled the vehicle in which it was found. Although “the essence of constructive possession is the power to control the contraband itself,” ownership, dominion, or control over a vehicle in which contraband is found, coupled with knowledge of that contraband, is sufficient to establish constructive possession. See United States v. Cochran, 683 F.3d 1314, 1318 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining that control over the premises in which contraband is found “permits an inference” of the power to control that contraband and is “enough to uphold a conviction on a sufficiency of the evidence challenge”); Wright, 392 F.3d at 1273. Contrary to Person’s contention, the evidence presented at trial established more than mere presence in the vicinity of the firearm or mere awareness of its location. Instead, it showed that he owned the car in which the firearm was found, was in sole control of the car when that firearm was found, and knew of its presence before it was found. Because the evidence demonstrated that Person exercised ownership, dominion, and control over the vehicle in which the firearm was concealed, the jury reasonably could have inferred that he constructively possessed that firearm. See United States v. Leonard, 138 F.3d 906, 5 Case: 12-13088 Date Filed: 06/27/2013 Page: 6 of 10 909 (11th Cir. 1998) (“The jury reasonably could have inferred that [the defendant] was the owner of a vehicle in which he knew cocaine and a gun were located, and therefore in constructive possession of both.”). Moreover, while uncontradicted testimony offered at trial indicated that the firearm belonged to Person’s son and that his son had driven his car on the date of the incident, that evidence did not preclude the jury from reasonably concluding that the defendant himself possessed the firearm. Possession, after all, may be “joint or sole” and “ownership is not a requirement for possession.” United States v. Boffil-Rivera, 607 F.3d 736, 740 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). And the jury was in no way obligated to credit each and every sliver of trial testimony, including that concerning Hall’s connection to the firearm and his father’s car, even if that testimony was uncontradicted. See Wright, 392 F.3d at 1274 (explaining that assessing the credibility of witness testimony “is within the jury’s exclusive province”). We therefore hold that the government presented sufficient evidence to support Person’s conviction for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon.