PA Superior Court: Back Seat Passenger Not Automatically in Possession of Drugs and Guns in the Front of Car

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Parrish, reversing the defendant’s conviction for Possession with the Intent to Deliver (“PWID”), Conspiracy, Possession of a Controlled Substance, Paraphernalia, and gun charges such as Violation of the Uniform Firearms Act Section 6106. In Parrish, the Superior Court found that the evidence was insufficient to convict Parrish of the gun and drug charges because Parrish was merely the back seat passenger in a car which had guns and drugs in the front of the car.  

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Parrish

Parrish involved a motor vehicle stop. Police pulled a car over in Luzerne County for having illegally tinted windows. The vehicle pulled over on command, but as police approached the car, they noticed that it was rocking back and forth as if people were moving around inside of it. They could not see what caused the rocking because of the tinted windows. When the police got up to the car, the driver of the car rolled down the window. The officers immediately smelled marijuana and saw a plastic bag containing marijuana in plain view. They also saw the driver straddling the center console between the two front seats and the grip of a silver handgun protruding from under the front passenger seat. Obviously, that is a strange place for the driver of the car to sit. They saw the defendant, Parrish, seated behind the driver’s seat with his hands on the headrest of the driver’s seat.

Because they saw drugs and a gun in plain view, the officers immediately arrested the driver and Parrish. They searched the entire car. They found a black bag on the passenger side in the front of the car. That bag contained a loaded gun, 250 packets of heroin, 12 packets of methamphetamine, a baggie of loose heroin, two scales, and other drug paraphernalia and ammunition. They found marijuana on the passenger-side door and a .40 caliber handgun protruding from underneath the front passenger-side seat. The glove compartment contained an extra magazine of bullets, and in the trunk, they found a bulletproof vest. They found $1,335 in cash on the defendant and $2,168 on the driver. Parrish cooperated with the police during his arrest. He gave his real name, and he did not attempt to run.

Gun and Drug Charges Based on Constructive Possession

Police charged Parrish with various drug and gun charges, as well as Receiving Stolen Property. Before trial, the court separated the felon in possession of a firearm charge from the remaining charges so that the jury would not be prejudiced by knowing that the defendant had a prior criminal record. The defendant then proceeded by way of jury trial, and the jury convicted him of all charges.

At trial, police testified to the above facts. They also confirmed that Parrish was not the registered owner of the car, and he did not have a key to the glove compartment or trunk. Police also believed that based on the positions of the men in the car, the defendant was probably not the driver. They did not test any of the items for fingerprints or DNA. The Commonwealth also presented an expert witness to testify that based on the totality of the circumstances, the drugs in the bag were likely for sale and possessed with the intent to deliver.

In this case, the defense presented evidence, as well. The defendant called a friend to testify that he had been at a party at the friend’s house all afternoon on the day of the arrest. Parrish stayed at the party until approximately 2 am. The friend then asked the driver of the car to drive the defendant home. When the defendant left the party, he was not carrying a satchel or any kind of bag. The friend also saw defendant lay down in the back seat when the defendant got into the car. The jury convicted the defendant of all charges, and the trial court sentenced him to 88 to 176 months of incarceration in state prison.

The Appeal of the Criminal Case

The defendant filed post-sentence motions for reconsideration of the sentence, for a new trial, and for discovery which the prosecution had apparently not provided prior to trial. The trial court denied those motions, and the defendant appealed to the Superior Court. On appeal, the defendant raised four issues:

1. whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions,

2. whether the trial court should have awarded a new trial based on the weight of the evidence,

3. whether the court abused its discretion in allowing one of the police officers to testify as an expert witness that the fact that there were two guns in the car meant that one probably belonged to the defendant, and

4. that the sentence was illegal because the court ordered a restitution payment in a case with no victim.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court only addressed the first issue because it resolved the case in the defendant's favor. The court noted that sufficiency of the evidence claims involve viewing all of the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner and determining whether there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, a conviction may be sustained entirely based on circumstantial evidence, but a jury is not permitted to simply guess. 

Here, the jury convicted Parrish of both gun charges and drug charges. Both types of charges required the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Parrish possessed the illegal items. Because the items were not physically on him, the prosecution’s case depended on a constructive possession theory. Possession can be found by proving actual possession, constructive possession, or joint constructive possession. Constructive possession exists when the defendant has the power to control the contraband and the intent to exercise that control. It may be proven by circumstantial evidence. At the same time, the defendant’s mere presence at the place where contraband is found or secreted is insufficient, standing alone, to prove that he exercised dominion or control over the items. Location and proximity to contraband alone are thus not conclusive of guilt. Instead, the Commonwealth must be able to prove at least that a defendant knew of the existence and location of the contraband.

Here, the court reversed the conviction because the defendant was sitting in the back of the car and all of the guns and drugs were in the front. Further, the evidence established that Parrish was not carrying any type of bag when he entered the car, he did not have the keys to the car, and he was not the owner or operator of it. There was no evidence that he had ever been seated in either of the car’s front seats. Neither of the recovered firearms was registered to him, and the police had failed to test any of the items for fingerprints or DNA. The Commonwealth also failed to present any evidence whatsoever that the defendant knew of the contents of the black bag in the front because the bag was opaque. The court also rejected the idea that the defendant could have moved from the front of the vehicle to the back due to his height and weight and the size of the vehicle. The court also ignored the testimony of the Commonwealth’s expert witness, which was likely improper, and it ultimately reversed the defendant’s conviction.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Philadelphia Criminal Lawyers Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

Constructive possession is an issue that often comes up in gun cases and drug cases. In many cases involving traffic stops, the contraband in the vehicle is not actually physically on the defendant. In these types of cases, there are often defenses based on constructive possession because the prosecution may not be able to prove who in the car, if anyone, possessed the prohibited items. Even where the drugs or guns are in the actual possession of the defendant, there may be constitutional defenses to the search and seizure of the vehicle and its occupants. If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation for contraband recovered during a car stop, we can help. We offer a free criminal defense strategy session to each potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer today.

Recent Case Results - Successful Outcomes in Robbery, Burglary, Probation, Possession, and Sex Crimes Cases

Our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have continued to obtain successful results on behalf of our clients in cases involving sex crimes, robbery, burglary, and Possession with the Intent to Deliver. These successful outcomes have included bail reductions, the dismissal of all charges, favorable results in pre-trial Motions to Suppress, and probationary and house arrest sentences. In the past two months alone, we have achieved a number of wins, including:

Commonwealth v. S.A. - S.A. was charged with rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, and related charges. The magistrate initially set bail at an extremely high amount due to the seriousness of the charges, and SA was unable to make bail. Within 24 hours of being retained, Attorney Goldstein obtained a significant bail reduction, and the defendant was able to make bail. After the defendant made bail, Attorney Goldstein was also able to have all charges dismissed at the preliminary hearing.

Commonwealth v. H.S. - Our criminal defense lawyers were able to obtain a full dismissal of all charges in a burglary case against HS at the preliminary hearing.

Commonwealth v. S.V. - Our attorneys were able to obtain a sentence of house arrest and drug treatment for a defendant who was convicted of drug charges. After the defendant was convicted of Possession with the Intent to Deliver, our defense attorneys arranged for the defendant's other open matters, including a case for which the defendant was on probation, to be brought in before the sentencing judge so that the defendant could be sentenced on all of the cases at the same time and only have one back judge. This procedure is called a 701 consolidation, and it can be very helpful in terms of avoiding multiple probation judges and consecutive sentences for a defendant who has violated probation.

Although the sentencing guidelines called for a state prison sentence and the defendant had been on probation at the time of the new arrest, our defense attorneys were able to convince the sentencing judge to give the defendant a chance to serve a house arrest sentence and obtain drug treatment. By investigating the client's background, our lawyers learned that despite being on probation for a similar offense, the defendant had never been ordered to undergo any kind of addiction treatment. Now, instead of serving time in state prison, the client will have the chance to receive treatment in the community, and the Court will also assist the client with obtaining educational and job training.

Commonwealth v S.A. - Attorney Goldstein obtained a full dismissal of all charges in a Robbery case at the preliminary hearing. In this case, the complainant alleged that the defendant had been part of a group that assaulted him and stole his tablet. After the complainant testified that he had been under the influence of prescription medication at the time of the incident and was no longer sure if the defendant had been present, Attorney Goldstein was able to convince the preliminary hearing judge to dismiss all charges. Prior to the preliminary hearing, Attorney Goldstein obtained a significant bail reduction which allowed the client to fight the case from out of custody.

Cmmonwealth v. D.S. - Our attorneys successfully moved for a bail reduction in a felony gun possession case. After the judge at the preliminary hearing refused to reduce bail, Attorney Goldstein immediately moved for a bail reduction in the Court of Common Pleas, and the Common Pleas judge reduced bail from $35,000 to $15,000.

In Re: J.W.: We negotiated an admission to Criminal Trespass in a juvenile delinquency case where the client was originally charged with felony burglary for breaking and entering into a school after hours. After hearing the defense's mitigation evidence and recommendation at disposition (sentencing), the Family Court judge found that the client was not in need of supervision and dismissed all of the charges. The defendant will not even have to be on probation, and the entire record of the case can be expunged.

Commonwealth v. E.G. - All charges dismissed prior to trial in domestic violence case involving Simple Assault and Recklessly Endangering Another Person charges.

Commonwealth v. M.M. - Client was arrested on a potential technical probation violation. Attorney Goldstein filed a motion to lift the detainer and had a hearing scheduled within a week. At the hearing, our defense attorneys convinced the judge to find that the client had not violated the terms of his probation. The client was immediately released the same day.

Commonwealth v. W.L. - The defendant was arrested on a bench warrant due to a failure to show up for court for a preliminary hearing. Our attorneys were able to have the bench warrant lifted without a finding of contempt of court and obtain Sign on Bond bail, meaning the defendant was released without an increase in bail.

Commonwealth v B.M. - We were able to successfully have Possession with the Intent to Deliver PCP and Conspiracy charges dismissed, leaving only charges related to marijuana sales for trial.

Commonwealth v. J.W. - Our defense attorneys obtained the dismissal of charges of selling crack cocaine and conspiracy at a preliminary hearing. The defendant will now face much less serious charges related only to marijuana in a trial in the Municipal Court. A conviction for Possession with the Intent to Deliver of crack cocaine may often involve jail time, whereas even a conviction for PWID of marijuana in the Municipal Court is more likely to result in probation.

Commonwealth v. M.G. - Successfully negotiated Section 17 disposition on drug possession charges. The Section 17 program requires the defendant to plead no contest and be placed on a period of probation. If the defendant successfully completes the probation, then the charges will be dismissed and can be expunged.

Commonwealth v. A.C. - Successfully negotiated for client who was facing assault charges to obtain entry into a Domestic Violence diversion program. If the client pays a small fine, completes a number of counseling sessions, and stays out of trouble for approximately four months, the entire case will be dismissed and can be expunged. Pursuant to the terms of the program, the client was not required to enter into any kind of plea or admission of guilt.

Commonwealth v. J.H. - Successfully negotiated for client's entry into drug treatment court for client facing two cases of Possession with the Intent to Deliver. If client completes the program, the charges will be dismissed and can be expunged, and client will not have a felony record.

Defenses to Weapons and Firearms Charges and Recent Helpful Supreme Court Caselaw

Firearms Violations

Gun Charges Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

Firearms and other weapons offenses are some of the most serious charges a criminal defendant can face in Pennsylvania. Although many Pennsylvania mandatory minimums have been eliminated, gun charges result in extremely high bail until the case is over, a felony record, and significant jail time upon conviction.

Pennsylvania Law criminalizes both the possession of firearms under certain circumstances as well as the possession of certain “offensive weapons.” Gun charges are typically referred to as VUFA charges (“Violation of the Uniform Firearms Act”). The most common gun charges seen in Philadelphia court are typically 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106, § 6108, § 6105, and § 6110.2.

VUFA § 6106 makes it illegal to carry a firearm in a car or in a concealed manner without a license to carry. In Philadelphia, § 6106 is almost always graded as a felony because it is charged at the same time as § 6108, and it may carry significant jail time even for defendants who do not have a prior criminal record. In the rest of the state, § 6106 is more likely to be a misdemeanor for a defendant who has no prior criminal record.

VUFA § 6108 makes it illegal to carry a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia. VUFA § 6108 is a misdemeanor of the first degree, but it is still taken very seriously.

VUFA § 6105 makes it illegal for people with prior convictions for certain offenses to carry a firearm. § 6105 may apply even to someone who does not have a prior felony conviction as certain misdemeanors, juvenile adjudications, and even Protection from Abuse orders may make someone subject to § 6105. It is typically referred to as the “felon in possession of a firearm” statute, and it is likely to carry the most severe penalties of any gun charge. However, § 6105 is not always properly graded as a felony. Depending on the disqualifying prior conviction or adjudication, a defendant may have committed only a misdemeanor, and the Commonwealth often charges defendants with felonies without realizing this.

Finally, VUFA § 6110.2 makes it a felony to possess a firearm with an obliterated serial number.

If you are charged with a violation of one of these statutes or some other weapons offense, you need to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. It is very possible that you may have a strong defense to your case.

First, for each charge, the police and prosecutor will have to prove that they found the weapon legally. If the police conducted an illegal stop or search, an experienced criminal lawyer may be able to have the weapon suppressed or excluded from evidence and the charges thrown out. In many cases, the police conduct stops and searches without proper reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and therefore the fruits of the illegal search must be excluded.

Second, the prosecution has to be able to prove that the gun was actually possessed by the defendant. Simply because a gun was found near the defendant, in a car in which the defendant was the passenger or even driver, or in a house, does not automatically mean that the gun was possessed by the defendant. The prosecution must show that the defendant actually possessed or constructively possessed the weapon. Constructive possession means that the defendant had knowledge of the weapon’s existence and the intent to control it. It is not enough to show that the defendant knew the weapon existed or was nearby because it may have belonged to someone else. The Commonwealth must also show that the defendant intended to control it. Experienced defense counsel can investigate the circumstances and determine if it may be possible to show that the gun belonged to someone else.

Third, each statute has very specific elements which the Commonwealth must prove. For example, § 6108 requires the prosecution to show that the gun was actually possessed on the streets of Philadelphia. If the prosecution can show only that the defendant had the gun in the front of private property, the prosecution may not be able to secure a conviction. Likewise, the Commonwealth often charges § 6106 as a third-degree felony even where they cannot show that the defendant actually concealed the gun.  

Gun charges are extremely serious, and they are far more complex than just whether or not the police found a gun. All of the statutes have highly technical elements which the prosecution must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and the state and federal constitutions require a showing that the police found the guns legally. If you are charged with a gun charge or other weapons offense, call 267-225-2545 now for a free, confidential consultation with an experienced criminal defense lawyer.

Other Weapons

In addition to these common VUFA charges, Pennsylvania law also prohibits carrying many types of “offensive weapons” under 18 Pa.C.S § 908. The statute prohibits carrying offensive weapons, and defines offensive weapons as follows:

Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge, any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or otherwise, any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.

These offenses can also be extremely serious. However, just as with a firearm, the police and prosecution must be able to show that they found the weapon lawfully. If the police conducted an illegal stop or search, then the weapon could be excluded and the charges dismissed. Likewise, the prosecution must be able to show that it was the defendant that actually possessed the prohibited weapon.

Most importantly, a recent United States Supreme Court case casts significant doubt on the constitutionality of the Prohibited Offensive Weapons statute. In Caetano v. Massachusetts, the United States Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a Massachusetts woman who owned a taser for self-defense against an abusive boyfriend. The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment provides the right to possess "all instruments that constitute bearable arms," even those not in existence at the time of the founding of the country. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found that the Massachusetts statute which prohibited tasers violated the Constitution and could not be enforced. The Pennsylvania statute has not yet been challenged in the appellate courts, so prosecutors continue to charge defendants with violations of the Prohibited Offensive Weapons statute. While we do not recommend that you start carrying a prohibited weapon in order to test the law, if you are charged with a violation of this statute, you need an attorney to fight for your rights under the United States Constitution.

Gun Charges Lawyers

If you are charged with a gun or other weapons offense, you need an experienced gun charges defense attorney to evaluate your case, investigate and analyze potential defenses, and provide you with all of the options. Call 267-225-2545 now for a free consultation.