Court Opinion

ID: 9942946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 15:06:12.125463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:24.925095
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

                       COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 APPEALS COURT

                                                  23-P-166

                                  COMMONWEALTH

                                       vs.

                                CANDI A. DUMAS.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of four

 charges of improper storage of a firearm, G. L. c. 140, § 131L,

 and one charge of reckless endangerment of a child, G. L.

 c. 265, § 13L.      The central issue in this appeal is whether

 there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

 that the defendant constructively possessed the firearms.1

 1 The defendant challenges one of the firearm storage convictions
 on the additional ground that there was insufficient evidence
 that the particular weapon (a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol
 manufactured by Sig Sauer) was improperly stored. The
 Commonwealth concedes that the evidence was insufficient as to
 this charge, an assessment with which we agree after reviewing
 the trial transcript. That conviction is accordingly reversed.
 We note that the record on appeal does not show which of the
 four firearm storage convictions was based on the improper
 storage of the firearm manufactured by Sig Sauer. The
 information does not appear on the trial court docket, the
 verdict slip has not been included in the appellate record, the
 delivery of the verdict was not transcribed, and the trial
 transcript does not otherwise reveal the information. The
Taking the evidence, together with the reasonable inferences to

be drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the

Commonwealth, we conclude that the evidence of constructive

possession was sufficient.2   However, we conclude that the

evidence of improper storage was insufficient as to one of the

four firearms.   Accordingly, we reverse one of the four firearm

storage convictions.   The remaining convictions are affirmed.

     Viewed through the familiar lens set out in Commonwealth v.

Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 678 (1979), the evidence permitted the

jury to find the following.   In December 2019, the police chief

of Warren notified the defendant by letter that her license to

carry firearms was being revoked.    Accordingly, the defendant

went to the police station on December 16, 2019, to surrender

her license.   While at the station, the defendant provided

information about "the particular handgun that was involved in

an incident [for which] she was turning in her" license.      She

also informed the police that there were additional firearms in

her home.   The defendant also stated that she was the only

person in the home who possessed a valid license to carry.     The

parties should assist the trial court in determining which count
is based on the .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol manufactured
by Sig Sauer.
2 The defendant makes no argument on appeal regarding the

conviction for reckless endangerment of a child and that
conviction is accordingly affirmed without discussion.

                                 2
defendant lived in the home with her estranged husband and her

fifteen year old stepson.

    The police then went to the defendant's home to retrieve

any firearms that were present.    The defendant told the police

that a .22 caliber revolver was located in a dresser drawer of

her bedroom.   The police located that unsecured loaded revolver

where the defendant had indicated they would.    Women's clothing

was located in the same dresser as the gun.     A shotgun was

located in a corner of the bedroom, and a bolt action rifle was

on the floor next to the bed.     Both firearms were loaded and

unsecured.

    The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

concerning her constructive possession of the firearms.    To

prove constructive possession, the Commonwealth was required to

establish "that the defendant had 'knowledge [of the weapon]

coupled with the ability and intention to exercise dominion and

control [over it].'"   Commonwealth v. Blevins, 56 Mass. App. Ct.

206, 210-211 (2002), quoting Commonwealth v. Kitchings, 40 Mass.

App. Ct. 591, 599 (1996).   The judge instructed the jurors that

they could consider evidence "about the location of the firearm,

rifle, or shotgun, the location of the defendant, and any other

relevant evidence to determine whether the defendant had control

of the firearm, rifle, or shotgun."

                                   3
    There is no question that the evidence was sufficient to

establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew

about the firearms; after all, she told the police about them.

The evidence was also sufficient as to her intention and ability

to control the firearms.   The defendant was the only person in

the household with a firearms license, which was a fact from

which the jury could reasonably infer her intent to control the

firearms located in her home.   The defendant's ability to

control the firearms could be inferred from the fact that she

told the police where the firearms were located and directed

them to their location once they arrived at the home, and from

the fact that the guns were located in her bedroom.    Indeed, two

of the guns were in plain view close to her bed, and one was in

a dresser drawer containing women's clothes.   Since the

defendant was the only woman living in the house, the jury could

reasonably infer that the female clothing was hers.    Where, as

here, a defendant "has a 'particular relationship' to the

location within a home or apartment in which the contraband is

found, the defendant is adequately linked to that contraband,

and the jury may reasonably infer that the defendant had

knowledge of the contraband, as well as the ability and

intention to exercise dominion and control over it."

Commonwealth v. Proia, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 824, 833 (2018),

                                 4
quoting Commonwealth v. Clarke, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 502, 506

(1998).

       With respect to the four convictions of improper storage of

a firearm, the judgment on the firearm storage conviction for

the .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol manufactured by Sig Sauer

is reversed, the verdict is set aside, and the judgment shall

enter for the defendant.    The remaining judgments of conviction

are affirmed.

                                      So ordered.

                                      By the Court (Vuono,
                                        Wolohojian & Toone, JJ.3),

                                      Assistant Clerk

Entered:    February 22, 2024.

3   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                  5