United States v. Crippen, 72-1081.
| Decision Date | 19 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1081.,72-1081. |
| Citation | 459 F.2d 1387 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Gardner Lee CRIPPEN, Appellant, and Norman William Bond. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
John A. Faraone, Wilmington, Del., for appellant.
Richard D. Levin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Wilmington, Del., F. L. Peter Stone, U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before VAN DUSEN, GIBBONS and JAMES ROSEN, Circuit Judges.
In this case defendant, Gardner Lee Crippen, appeals from a conviction under an indictment charging possession of narcotic drugs with the intent to distribute and dispense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1970). The conviction, based on a jury verdict, resulted from the sale of two ounces of heroin and two ounces of cocaine to an undercover agent from the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Defendant raises three grounds of appeal before this court.
First, he alleges that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, since there was insufficient evidence to establish his possession of the controlled substance. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government,1 it is clear that the requisite possession required under the statute was established. The requisite possession under 21 U.S.C. § 841 may be either actual or constructive.2 Constructive possession may be found if the constructive possessor had the power to exercise dominion and control over the controlled substance.3 The following facts establish defendant's constructive possession in this case:
Defendant's second contention is that the chain of custody of the narcotics admitted into evidence was not established. Our review of the record indicates that a direct chain of custody was established by circumstantial evidence.
Defendant's final claim of entrapment is without merit. The jury was free to resolve the conflicting testimony of the Government agents and defense witness, Miss Curry. The testimony of the Government agents was sufficient to establish that the defendant was ready, willing and able to commit the crime and was not corrupted by any overreaching activity of the agents. United States v. Catanzaro, 407 F.2d 998 (3d Cir.1969).
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gencorp, Inc. v. Olin Corp.
...liability for individuals and entities that did not have title to or physically possess certain items. See, e.g., United States v. Crippen, 459 F.2d 1387, 1388 (3d Cir.1972) ("constructive" possession — "dominion and control over the [ ] substance" — may satisfy the possession requirement i......
-
United States v. Jones
...the evidence presented that the defendant had either actual or constructive possession of the heroin involved herein, United States v. Crippen, 459 F.2d 1387 (3d Cir. 1972), with the requisite intent to Absence of Informant at Trial. Prior to the first trial, defense counsel was advised by ......
-
United States v. Sickles, Crim. A. No. 81-27.
...physical possession; "constructive possession" will suffice. See United States v. Polk, 574 F.2d 964 (8th Cir. 1978); United States v. Crippen, 459 F.2d 1387 (3d Cir. 1972). Constructive possession may be established by showing that the defendant knowingly had the gun under his "control or ......
-
U.S. v. Rowe
...Possession with intent to distribute is actual or constructive possession over a controlled substance, United States v. Crippen , 459 F.2d 1387, 1388 (3d Cir. 1972) (per curiam), by a defendant who "ha[s] in mind or plan[s] in some way" to "deliver or transfer possession or control" of the ......