Hancock v. Commonwealth
21 Va. App. 466, 1995 Va. App. LEXIS 938, 465 S.E.2d 138 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish constructive possession of an item, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was aware of both the presence and character of the item and that it was subject to their dominion and control. Mere proximity to an item in a shared space with others is insufficient to prove possession.
Facts:
- On April 11, 1994, Officer K.O. Hubbard received a call about shots fired from a vehicle.
- Hubbard stopped a car matching the description, which contained five men.
- Winfred L. Hancock was a passenger seated in the back seat, behind the driver.
- When Sergeant M.A. Lee asked Hancock to exit the vehicle at nighttime, Lee observed a revolver on the floorboard under the driver's seat as Hancock lifted his feet.
- Officers could not see the firearm until Hancock moved his feet, and the view was only possible because of a street light.
- The firearm had fresh mud on it, and two of its three shells had been fired.
- Hancock's shoes were noted to be wet.
Procedural Posture:
- Winfred L. Hancock was charged with possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony.
- In a Virginia trial court, the trial judge found Hancock guilty based on a theory of constructive possession.
- The trial judge sentenced Hancock to three years of imprisonment.
- Hancock appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Virginia (the intermediate appellate court), arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does evidence showing only that a firearm was found on the floor of a vehicle near where a passenger's feet had been, in a car occupied by four other individuals, suffice to prove constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt?
Opinions:
Majority - Benton, J.
No. The evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession because it established nothing more than Hancock's proximity to the firearm in a vehicle occupied by multiple people. The governing statute requires proof that the accused 'knowingly and intentionally possessed' the firearm, which means actual knowledge, not that he 'should have known' it was there as the trial judge erroneously concluded. To prove constructive possession, the Commonwealth must present evidence of acts, statements, or conduct showing the accused was aware of the firearm's presence and exercised dominion and control over it. Here, there was no fingerprint evidence, no statements by Hancock, and no evidence linking him to the gun other than his presence near it. The evidence did not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that any of the other four occupants of the vehicle possessed the gun, thus failing to rise above mere suspicion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary standard required to prove constructive possession, particularly in cases involving shared spaces like automobiles. It clarifies that the mens rea for possession is actual knowledge ('knowingly'), rejecting a negligence standard ('should have known'). The ruling serves as a crucial check on convictions based purely on proximity and suspicion, requiring prosecutors to produce specific, affirmative evidence linking the accused to the contraband to show awareness and control. This precedent makes it significantly harder to secure a conviction in multi-occupant vehicle cases without additional inculpatory evidence.
Unlock the full brief for Hancock v. Commonwealth