Wheeler v. United States
1985 D.C. App. LEXIS 407, 494 A.2d 170 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Constructive possession of a controlled substance in a jointly occupied space can be established by circumstantial evidence beyond mere proximity, such as proof of residency, attempts to destroy evidence, and other conduct indicating consciousness of guilt.
Facts:
- Police received a tip that female occupants of Room 201 at the Logan Inn were selling heroin.
- On January 17, 1982, police executed a search warrant at Room 201.
- After police knocked and identified themselves, they heard 'scurrying' noises but received no response for over a minute.
- Upon forcing entry, police saw Lillian E. Wheeler and two other women exiting the bathroom as the toilet was being flushed.
- Wheeler, who was in sleeping attire, admitted she lived in the room, and her luggage and clothing were present.
- Wheeler provided a false name (an alias) to the police officers.
- The room contained two beds; police found a stash of heroin under the pillow of one of the beds.
Procedural Posture:
- Lillian E. Wheeler was charged with possession of a controlled substance (heroin).
- Following a bench trial in the trial court, Wheeler was found guilty.
- At the close of the government's case, Wheeler's counsel made a motion for judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied.
- Wheeler appealed her conviction to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 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:
Is the evidence sufficient to establish constructive possession of heroin when the defendant is a resident of a shared hotel room, is present during an apparent attempt to destroy evidence upon police arrival, gives a false name to police, and the heroin is found in the room?
Opinions:
Majority - Mack, J.
Yes. The evidence is sufficient to establish constructive possession. While mere proximity to contraband in a multi-person setting is insufficient, constructive possession can be inferred from circumstantial evidence that demonstrates the defendant knowingly had the power and intent to exercise dominion and control over the substance. Here, the government provided sufficient evidence beyond mere proximity. Wheeler's admission that she lived in the room established her right to exercise control over its contents. Furthermore, her presence in the bathroom while the toilet was flushed immediately after police announced their presence supports an inference of destroying evidence. Finally, her use of an alias when questioned by police demonstrates a consciousness of guilt. Taken together, these circumstances are sufficient for a trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Wheeler had constructive possession of the heroin.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'possession plus' standard required for a constructive possession conviction in a joint occupancy scenario. It establishes that while a defendant's mere presence near contraband is not enough, a combination of incriminating circumstantial evidence can create a supportable inference of knowledge and control. The court's focus on conduct indicating 'consciousness of guilt'—such as destroying evidence and using an alias—provides a framework for prosecutors in future cases. This decision makes it more difficult for defendants who are residents of a property to escape liability by simply pointing to the presence of other individuals.
