Opinion ID: 177111
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Ramos argues that since he exercised no dominion over the contraband, the government failed to prove even constructive possession of the heroin or the firearm beyond a reasonable doubt. AA person who, although not in actual possession, knowingly has both the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over a thing, either directly or through another person or persons, is then in constructive possession of it.@ 4 United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99, 112 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Blackston, 940 F.2d 877, 883 (3d Cir. 1991)). However, Amere proximity . . . is insufficient to support a finding of possession.@ United States v. Davis, 461 F.2d 1026, 1036 (3d Cir. 1972). Moreover, a defendant need not have sole possession of an item in order for the government to establish constructive possession of it. A[D]ominion and control need not be exclusive but may be shared with others.@ Id. at 1035. The evidence at trial established that Ramos exercised dominion and control over the drugs and the gun. Officers testified to two separate observations which the jury could reasonably have concluded were hand-to-hand drug sales out of the passenger window of the Suburban where Ramos was sitting. Ramos had $442 in his possession, including twenty-six ten-dollar bills. An expert witness testified that heroin sold for $10 a bag in that area, and that is certainly consistent with having so many ten-dollar bills in one=s possession. In addition, hundreds of packets of drugs, the gun, and drug paraphernalia were found within close proximity to where Ramos was sitting. Ramos argues that he was not in the car when these alleged hand-to-hand transactions occurred, and suggests that Burk picked him up somewhere along the three blocks between where the drug sales occurred and the officers stopped the car. Ramos further suggests that even assuming that he was present in the car at the time of the sales, he might have just sat passively while the driver reached past him to make the drug sale. However, given the testimony, a reasonable jury could certainly conclude that Ramos was 5 doing something more than enjoying a pleasant evening drive with a friend who just happened to sell some heroin while leisurely driving along the city streets. The relevant inquiry is whether Aafter viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.@ Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis in original). Here, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that Ramos= presence was more than coincidental. The jury could conclude that he actually participated in the drug sales, and knew the gun was in the car. He was sitting next to the window where drugs and money were exchanged, he had twenty-six ten-dollar bills in his possession, and the gun and hundreds of packets of drugs were in his immediate vicinity inside of the car and were clearly visible to him.1