Com. v. Bennefield
| Decision Date | 28 September 1977 |
| Citation | 367 N.E.2d 832,373 Mass. 452 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Eileen Cenci, Cambridge, for defendant.
L. Jeffrey Meehan, Sp. Asst. Dist. Atty., for Commonwealth.
Before HENNESSEY, C. J., and QUIRICO, BRAUCHER, KAPLAN and WILKINS, JJ.
The defendant was convicted in a jury-waived trial of possession of a shotgun with a barrel less than eighteen inches in length in violation of G.L. c. 269, § 10(c ), and of knowingly carrying a firearm in a vehicle in violation of G.L. c. 269, § 10(a ). We transferred the appeals here for disposition.
The defendant argues that the Commonwealth's evidence did not warrant a finding that he knew the weapon was in the motor vehicle in which he was traveling and that, accordingly, his motions for findings of not guilty, presented at the conclusion of the Commonwealth's case, should have been allowed. Knowledge is an essential element of each crime. Commonwealth v. Jackson, --- Mass. ---, --- a, 344 N.E.2d 166 (1976). The evidence did not warrant a finding that the defendant knew of the presence of the weapon in the motor vehicle; the motions for findings of not guilty should have been allowed; and we reverse the convictions. 1
The defendant was a passenger in the front seat of a Cadillac motor vehicle which was stopped by the Springfield police about 11:00 P.M. on April 27, 1975. In addition to the defendant and the driver, there was a passenger in the rear of the vehicle. The evidence at the trial disclosed neither who owned the vehicle nor why the police stopped the vehicle, which had been under observation by the police for only two or three minutes. A police officer shined a flashlight on the floor of the rear of the vehicle exposing a shotgun, which the rear seat passenger attempted to kick or shove under the front seat.
This evidence was not sufficient to warrant an inference that the defendant was aware of the presence of the gun. In Commonwealth v. Albano, --- Mass. --- b, 365 N.E.2d 808 (1977) we recently considered the question whether an inference of knowledge was warranted where a gun was found in a motor vehicle. We noted that it is insufficient to show merely that both the defendant and a gun were in the same car. Id. at --- c, 365 N.E.2d 808. Commonwealth v. Boone, 356 Mass. 85, 87, 248 N.E.2d 279 (1969). The evidence must be sufficient to warrant a reasonable inference of personal knowledge of the presence of the gun. In the Albano case, the defendant was driving his father's car in a commercial area at 4:30 A.M. without lights and with his rear license plate obscured. He stopped in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Ormond O.
...to support conclusion that defendant had constructive possession of cocaine).14 Another useful guidepost is Commonwealth v. Bennefield, 373 Mass. 452, 367 N.E.2d 832 (1977). There, as in this case, a vehicle with three occupants was stopped. Id. at 453, 367 N.E.2d 832. The defendant, as in ......
-
Com. v. Collins
...control over the firearm ...." Commonwealth v. Albano, 373 Mass. 132, 134, 365 N.E.2d 808 (1977). See Commonwealth v. Bennefield, 373 Mass. 452, 453, 367 N.E.2d 832 (1977); Commonwealth v. Almeida, --- Mass. ---, --- a, 409 N.E.2d 776 (1980); Commonwealth v. Gray, 5 Mass.App. 296, 298-299, ......
-
Com. v. Diaz
...1339 (1983), in which there was no evidence that the gun was easily visible. It is also distinguishable from Commonwealth v. Bennefield, 373 Mass. 452, 367 N.E.2d 832 (1977), where the evidence placed the defendant in the front seat of a car and the gun on the floor in the back of the car. ......
-
Com. v. Hill
...or that he had had the requisite knowledge of the presence of the weapon in the motor vehicle. We agree. Compare Commonwealth v. Bennefield, 373 Mass. 452, 367 N.E.2d 832 (1977), with Commonwealth v. Albano, 373 Mass. 132, 365 N.E.2d 808 "On this issue, we consider only the evidence introdu......