Opinion ID: 498378
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Constructive Possession

Text: 17 The appellant has argued that the evidence before the jury was insufficient to support a charge of illegal possession because no evidence was presented to indicate that the appellant had control over the items in the safe. We can find no merit in this claim. The facts developed at trial revealed that Zabalaga had the keys to the locked car in which the drugs were found; his wallet and other personal belongings were in the safe; the safe's combination was on a card in his wallet; his clothing and other personal belongings were in the passenger area of the vehicle; and it appeared that the appellant had actual control over the car and the drugs therein, for only he had keys to the car. 18 On this record, we think that it is plain that the Government offered adequate evidence to establish that the appellant constructively possessed the cocaine. In United States v. Pardo, 636 F.2d 535, 548 (D.C. Cir.1980) (quoting United States v. Davis, 562 F.2d 681, 684 (D.C.Cir.1977)), we held that [t]o prove constructive possession of narcotics the Government must show that the defendant was in a position or had the right to exercise dominion and control over the drugs. On the evidence here, a jury clearly could have concluded that [Zabalaga] knew what was in the [safe] and was in a position to exercise some control over it. 636 F.2d at 548.