Com. v. Valette

• Decision Date: 18 September 1992
• Citation: 531 Pa. 384,613 A.2d 548
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Angel VALETTE, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 548

613 A.2d 548

531 Pa. 384

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Angel VALETTE, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted May 4, 1992.

Decided Sept. 18, 1992.

Thomas L. Kearney, III, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

William H. Graff, Christy H. Fawcett, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.

Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, ZAPPALA PAPADAKOS and CAPPY, JJ.

OPINION

PAPADAKOS, Justice.

The appellee, Angel Valette, was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver ¹ following a jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas of York County. He appealed his judgment of sentence to the Superior Court, which affirmed. ² He thereafter filed a petition for allowance of appeal with this Court, which we granted, limited to examining the parameters of the theory of constructive possession.

The convictions arose from evidence obtained in a police search of a two story apartment in York Pennsylvania. On November 15, 1988, police in possession of a search warrant raided the apartment unit. The living room was the first room entered by the police and was on the first story of the two story apartment. Co-defendant Felix Sanchez had admitted the police officers. Upon entry through the front door of the apartment they saw petitioner and co-defendant Carlos Delapaz sitting in the living room eating. Upon entering the kitchen which was located on the same floor, the police found co-defendant Teofilo Sarcedo. Officers located co-defendant Sonia Ramos in the bathroom of the apartment. Police secured the area and assembled all the occupants into the kitchen and proceeded to search the premises.

During the search of the living room, the police found the following in a closet on the top shelf: $1500.00 in cash hidden in a book, Dominican Republic passports bearing the names of co-defendants Sanchez and Delapaz, and a birth certificate of co-defendant Ramos.

In the kitchen they found approximately two grams of cocaine in packets hidden behind a metal cabinet, and in the metal cabinet itself was a phone beeper and a photograph of petitioner, co-defendant Sarcedo, and two other unidentified males. On the kitchen table, the police found identification papers of co-defendants Sonia Ramos and Teofilo Sarcedo.

The police searched the second floor of the two floor apartment. In a bedroom they discovered a closed briefcase hidden beneath floorboards. In the briefcase they found 283 grams of cocaine, a sifter, plastic bags and a cellular phone. Also beneath the floorboards was a triple beam balance and a plastic bag containing a residue of some sort. A wallet bearing identification for co-defendant Sarcedo was found under a mattress.

A search was also conducted of the individual defendants. As a result, keys fitting the door locks of the apartment were found in co-defendant Delapaz's pants pocket, and $217.00 in cash was found on co-defendant Sarcedo's person. Apart from the various forms of identification and $1,500.00 in cash found hidden in the living room closet, nothing incriminating was found within the room where appellant was situated at the time of the raid, and appellant possessed no contraband on his person.

The police arrested all the occupants of the apartment and charged them with various counts of possession and possession with intent to deliver controlled substances. One of the defendants pleaded guilty to simple possession and was not tried. The remaining defendants, including petitioner, were tried together despite the objections of counsel. The appellant's counsel moved for a demurrer on the charges against his client, but the demurrer was denied. Appellant was ultimately convicted of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. Post trial motions were filed and denied, and the appellant was sentenced to serve a period of incarceration of not less than four (4) nor more than eight (8) years. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed.

As noted above, we granted petition for allowance of appeal for the purpose of examining whether the lower courts applied the proper test in assessing whether appellant had constructive possession of the controlled substances.

The appellant argues that the evidence was not sufficient to establish constructive possession. He contends that he merely was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that although he knew the co-defendants, he himself was not involved in drug dealing.

In response, the Commonwealth contends that the testimony of lay and expert witnesses, together with the physical evidence, was sufficient to prove constructive possession of the controlled substances, and hence, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.

In determining whether the Commonwealth has met its burden of proof, the test to be applied is:

Whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and drawing all reasonable inferences favorable to the Commonwealth, there is sufficient evidence to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.... The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.... Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire trial record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered.... Finally, the trier of fact, while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence. (Citations omitted).

Commonwealth v. Griscavage, 512 Pa. 540, 543, 517 A.2d 1256, 1257 (1986), citing Commonwealth v. Harper, 485 Pa. 572, 403 A.2d 536 (1979).

In drug possession cases, the Commonwealth must prove that a defendant had knowing or intentional possession of a controlled substance, and if the substance is not found on the defendant's person, then the Commonwealth must satisfy that burden by proof of "constructive possession."

This Court has defined constructive possession as "the ability to exercise a conscious dominion over the illegal substance: the power to control the contraband and the intent to exercise that control." Commonwealth v. Macolino, 503 Pa. 201, 206, 469 A.2d 132, 134 (1983). Constructive possession may be found in one or more actors where the item in issue is in an area of joint control and equal access. Commonwealth v. Murdrick, 510 Pa. 305, 507 A.2d 1212 (1986). In Macolino, this Court further determined that "An intent to maintain a conscious dominion may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances.... [and], circumstantial evidence may be used to establish a defendant's possession of drugs or contraband." Macolino, Id. at 206, 469 A.2d at 134. (citations omitted).

The Commonwealth's evidence included testimony by Detective ...