Opinion ID: 598512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Count Three Surplusage

Text: 25 Finally, Kenneth argues that the district court erred in failing to strike certain enumerated weapons from Count Three, which charged the use of a firearm in connection with a felony drug offense. As discussed, authorities arrested Kenneth on April 29, 1988, and found on his person cocaine and a handgun. Count Three focuses not only on the weapon found in Kenneth's rear pocket, a .357 magnum, but also on other weapons seized from the site of the arrest. Kenneth asserts that nothing connected him to the other weapons, so they should have been stricken from the charge as surplusage, under Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(d). 26 Significant circumstantial evidence exists to support the notion that Kenneth constructively possessed all of the guns found at the site of his arrest. Witness testimony portrayed him not only as a frequenter of the house, but possibly as a resident thereof. Physical evidence found at the scene, e.g., identification cards and traffic citations, further linked Kenneth to the arrest site. Such evidence, taken as a whole, lends itself to a determination of constructive possession. 27 Even if Kenneth did not possess any of the other listed weapons, his conceded possession of the .357 handgun provides an adequate basis for conviction under Count Three. Possession vel non of other guns would have had no effect on the efficacy of the conviction or on ultimate sentencing. Thus, assuming the other guns listed were surplusage, no prejudice arose from their inclusion in Count Three. 28