Court Opinion

ID: 9541697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:27:55.39+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:29.692177
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Spaeth, J.:
I concur in the result reached by the majority but add a comment on the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence. The trial judge properly found appellant guilty of possessing the drugs found in the apartment, but erroneously based bis finding on the fact that appellant was the sole lessee of the apartment. Since the apartment was occupied by appellant and his wife, the charge of possession against appellant cannot rest merely upon the fact that he had a proprietary interest in the apartment. See Commonwealth v. Fortune, 456 Pa. 365, 318 A. 2d 327 (1974); Whitebread & Stevens, Constructive Possession in Narcotics Cases: To Have and Have Not, 58 Va. L. Rev. 751, 763-64 (1972). There must be further circumstances showing Ms conscious domimon over the drugs. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Updegrove, 223 Pa. Superior Ct. 7, 296 A. 2d 854 (1972) (contraband found among defendant’s effects); Note, Possession of Narcotics in Pennsylvania: “Joint Possession,” 76 Dick. L. Rev. 499, 521 (1972). The record indicates that drugs were found in numerous places throughout the apartment, some apparently in plain view. Such evidence when coupled with appellant’s residency in the apartment supports Ms conviction. TMs conclusion is not affected by the fact that appellant’s wife was acquitted by the same judge on the same evidence. We are free to evaluate the verdict against appellant independently of the verdict rendered in favor of his wife.