Opinion ID: 2383290
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The evidence of prior possession of handguns.

Text: Martin contends that the trial judge erred in admitting as other crimes evidence presumptively barred by Drew v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 11, 331 F.2d 85 (1964), and its progeny, testimony by Ms. Stover and Ms. Easterwood that they had seen handguns at Martin's apartment on previous occasions. We have held that possession of such weapons, without more, is not wrongful conduct subject to the strictures of Drew. See Ali v. United States, 581 A.2d 368, 375 (D.C.1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 259, 116 L.Ed.2d 213 (1991). Moreover, [a]n accused person's prior possession of the physical means of committing the crime is some evidence of the probability of his guilt, and is therefore admissible. Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 710, 712 (D.C. 1977). Here, Martin's state of mind when he allegedly directed Brandon, upon their return from the liquor store to Trenton Park, to get it or get the things, is potentially illuminated by the testimony that weapons were in the apartment. That he had handguns at his home makes it more likely that the things (or it) to which he referred were handguns. There was no error in the admission of the evidence.