Opinion ID: 175612
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Substantive Possession Charge

Text: Ferguson argues that the District Court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the substantive heroin possession charge. Specifically, he claims that the evidence presented at trial failed to demonstrate his constructive possession of the heroin found in his vehicle’s center console. The Government, Ferguson argues, established only his proximity to and knowledge of the heroin’s secret location. We disagree. To show constructive possession, the Government was required to prove that Ferguson had both the power and intent at a given time to exercise dominion or control over the contraband. See United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99, 112 (3d Cir. 1999). “Dominion and control” refers to the “ability to reduce an object to actual possession,” United States v. Martorano, 709 F.2d 863, 869 (3d Cir. 1983). This may be proven by 11 evidence that the defendant attempted to hide or destroy the object, see United States v. Davis, 461 F.2d 1026, 1035-36 (3d Cir. 1972), but may not be proven by evidence demonstrating the defendant’s mere proximity to the object, see United States v. Jenkins, 90 F.3d 814, 818 (3d Cir. 1996). Further, “dominion and control” is not exclusive; multiple individuals may exercise dominion and control simultaneously. Davis, 461 F.2d at 1035. The evidence presented at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, allowed a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ferguson exercised dominion and control over the heroin. The jury heard a recorded phone call during which Ferguson referred to his vehicle as “my Jeep,” Government Supplemental Appendix (“Gov’t Supp. App.”) 96, and that he regularly operated it, App. 2954-55. See United States v. Iafelice, 978 F.2d 92, 97 (3d Cir. 1992) (“Ownership and operation of the car [within which drugs are found] are highly relevant facts that could reasonably have been considered by a jury in evaluating [defendant’s] knowledge of, and dominion and control over, the drugs.”). Further, the jury heard that Ferguson was the one who removed the heroin from the driver’s-side door and hid it in the center console. Attempting to conceal an object is a type of behavior from which a jury may infer constructive possession. See Jenkins, 90 F.3d at 818 (“The kind of evidence that can establish dominion and control [over an object] includes . . . evidence that the defendant attempted to hide [the object.]”). The District Court did not err in denying Ferguson’s post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal on possession with intent to distribute heroin. 12