Com. v. Tine
| Decision Date | 03 October 1969 |
| Citation | 292 A.2d 483,221 Pa.Super. 318 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Joseph Michael TINE, Appellant. . June 16, Richard E. Myers, Greensburg, for appellant. H. Martin, Asst. Dist. Atty., John N. Scales, Dist. Atty., Greensburg, for appellee. Before WRIGHT, P.J., and WATKINS, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, CERCONE and PACKEL JJ. HOFFMAN, Judge: Appellant was arrested on |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Richard E. Myers, Greensburg, for appellant.
H. Martin, Asst. Dist. Atty., John N. Scales, Dist. Atty., Greensburg, for appellee.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., and WATKINS, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, CERCONE and PACKEL JJ.
Appellant was arrested on October 3, 1969, for violation of the Uniform Firearms Act, 18 P.S. § 4628, and for possession of narcotic drugs, a violation of the Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, 35 P.S. § 780--1 et seq. This arrest was the result of a raid conducted by federal, state and local law enforcement officers.
Based upon information received from a confidential informant and prior surveillances, police officers obtained warrants for the search of two mobile homes owned by Anthony LaRocca and George San. The police raid resulted in the arrest of twenty-one persons who were either in the mobile homes or on the grounds surrounding the homes attending a pig and corn roast.
At the time of the raid appellant was a guest in the living room of the LaRocca mobile home. The raid uncovered quantities of marijuana and dangerous drugs in the bedroom and the kitchen Which adjoined the living room of the LaRocca trailer.
A motion to suppress the evidence seized in the raid was denied. Thereafter, appellant was tried and found guilty of the possession of narcotic drugs and not guilty of the Uniform Firearms Act violation.
Appellant contends that probable cause was lacking for the issuance of the search warrant used to search the LaRocca trailer, and that the search warrant was not properly executed. We do not have to decide these constitutional issues, however, as the evidence in this case was not sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt on the charge of possession of narcotic drugs.
The instant case cannot be distinguished from Commonwealth v. Tirpak, 441 Pa. 534, 272 A.2d 476 (1971). In Tirpak, the police officers entered the home of Ida Jane Jansama and arrested seven guests of Miss Jansama. These guests were discovered in the game room, where the police found an open jar containing marijuana and four butts of marijuana cigarettes. On these facts our Supreme Court held that the evidence was insufficient to find that the guests in the Jansama house were in possession or control of the drugs, and that, therefore, the guests could not be found guilty. 1
In the instant case the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gaines
...where illicit drugs are found, even were it to be shown that an accused knew that the drugs were present. Commonwealth v. Tine, 221 Pa.Super. 318, 292 A.2d 483 (Super.Ct.1972). Even where defendant was a colessee of an apartment in which drugs were found in the presence of four other people......
-
Commonwealth v. Stephens
... ... Florida, ... 441 Pa. 534, 272 A.2d 476 (1971); Commonwealth v ... Reece, 437 Pa. 422, 263 A.2d 463 (1970); ... Commonwealth v. Tine, 221 Pa.Super. 318, 292 A.2d ... 483 (1972) ... The court ... below placed some emphasis on appellant's proprietary ... interest in the ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Gabig
... ... This ... search was also challenged by a codefendant in the companion ... case of Com. v. Freistak, 35 Cumberland L.J. 58 ... (1982). The codefendant, who had been given permission to use ... the locker, argued, as does defendant ... possession: Com. v. Wisor, 466 Pa. 527, 353 A.2d 817 ... (1976) (by itself ownership does not support inference of ... possession); Com. v. Tine, 221 Pa.Super Ct. 318, 292 ... A.2d 483 (1972) (mere knowledge does not establish ... possession). Of course, these may be factors in determining ... ...
-
Com. v. Naguski
...of those in the group were in possession or control. Commonwealth v. Tirpak, 441 Pa. 534, 277 A.2d 476 (1971); 6 Commonwealth v. Tine, 221 Pa.Super. 318, 292 A.2d 483 (1972); Commonwealth v. Townsend, 428 Pa. 281, 237 A.2d 192 (1968). Intention to control the contraband must also be proved,......