Opinion ID: 395208
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant Rogers: Constructive Possession

Text: 18 Defendant Rogers also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against him on the issue of constructive possession. As the district court noted, the evidence against Rogers was much weaker than that against Council. 1 The district court still found that the evidence against Rogers established, beyond a reasonable doubt, his constructive possession of the heroin in question. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the government, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942), we affirm the conviction of defendant Rogers for possession of heroin with intent to distribute. 19 The district court relied upon two instances of Rogers' involvement to support the finding of guilt. First, Rogers, like Council, agreed to conduct future sales at Comiskey Park. As noted in Part A, supra at pp. 1181-1182, with respect to defendant Council, this is a significant indicator of Rogers' control over this heroin transaction and evidence of his ability to assure future deliveries. A person having an association with those (like White) having physical custody of the drugs so as to enable him to assure their production, without difficulty, to a customer as a matter of course may be held to have constructive possession. United States v. Calabro, 449 F.2d 885, 891-92 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047, 92 S.Ct. 728, 30 L.Ed.2d 735 (1972) (quoting United States v. Jones, 308 F.2d 26, 30 (2d Cir. 1962) (en banc )). 20 Second, Rogers went to the car with Officer Kolman when she went to get the money for the transaction. White instructed Rogers to go back with her to the car, and asked if Rogers had his piece. Rogers responded yes, asked for the keys to White's apartment and went outside with Officer Kolman where he was arrested. The district court felt that this action by Rogers facilitating the payment was inextricably intertwined with the possession of the heroin. We agree with the reasoning of the district court that the actions of Rogers were probative of his dominion over the heroin itself. Indeed, the payment aspect of the transaction was the most important part of this drug sale. Rogers' role in overseeing the collection of the money attests to his position of authority vis-a-vis the entire transaction. Rogers argues that the evidence established that he merely aided and abetted the transaction. See United States v. Jones, 308 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1962) (en banc ). We believe, however, that his accompanying Officer Kolman to get the funds and his agreement to future deliveries at Comiskey Park, when construed in a light most favorable to the Government, are sufficient evidence of constructive possession to sustain his conviction.