No. 751 Philadelphia, 1982, Appeal from Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Berks County, No. 80067301.
William F. Ochs, Jr., Public Defender, Reading, for appellant.
Charles M. Guthrie, Jr., First Assistant District Attorney, Reading, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Cavanaugh, Wieand and Hoffman, JJ. Hoffman, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
[ 319 Pa. Super. Page 539]
If, during a routine search of a closed but unlocked prison cell, a plastic bag containing 64 marijuana cigarettes falls from items of clothing in the cell, is the sole occupant of the cell properly convicted of violating the statute making it a criminal offense to possess marijuana? Correctional officers conducting the search testified that the package of marijuana cigarettes had fallen from a shirt or jacket hanging in the cell. Juan Ortiz Diaz, the occupant of the cell, who was present at the time of the search, said that the cigarettes had fallen from items of dirty clothing in his laundry bag. This evidence was submitted to a jury which found Diaz guilty of possessing marijuana. A motion in arrest of judgment was denied, sentence was imposed, and this appeal followed. We affirm.
The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, having viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and having drawn all reasonable inferences favorable to the Commonwealth, the jury could logically have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had marijuana in his possession. See: Commonwealth v. Giles, 500 Pa. 413, 415, 456 A.2d 1356, 1357 (1983); Commonwealth v. Bachert, 499 Pa. 398, 402, 453 A.2d 931, 933 (1982); Commonwealth v. Darden, 311 Pa. Super. 170, 172, 457 A.2d 549, 550 (1983); Commonwealth v. Grabowski, 306 Pa. Super. 483, 486-87, 452 A.2d 827, 829 (1982).
This standard of review means what it says. The evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the Commonwealth. Where there is only one occupant of a prison cell, and a package of marijuana cigarettes is found in the cell among articles of the occupant's clothing, it is reasonable to infer therefrom that the occupant knew of the marijuana and had the power and intent to exercise control of the marijuana.
It is well settled that an inference of conscious dominion can be drawn from facts showing that the contraband was
[ 319 Pa. Super. Page 540]
found in a place normally accessible only to the accused. Commonwealth v. DeCampli, 243 Pa. Super. 69, 75, 364 A.2d 454, 456-457 (1976). See also: Commonwealth v. Stamps, 493 Pa. 530, 427 A.2d 141 (1981) (accused was sole tenant of apartment); Commonwealth v. Minoske, 295 Pa. Super. 192, 441 A.2d 414 (1982) (bottom of accused's bedroom closet in room he occupied alone deemed normally accessible to him alone); Commonwealth v. Thompson, 286 Pa. Super. 31, 428 A.2d 223 (1981) (contraband in prison cell wedged into cross-piece of table near appellant's bunk); Commonwealth v. Cubler, 236 Pa. Super. 614, 346 A.2d 814 (1975) (accused was sole lessee of house). However, the inference loses its persuasiveness if the contraband is found in a place where others have equal access with the accused. Commonwealth v. Stamps, supra, 493 Pa. at 538, 427 A.2d at 145; Commonwealth v. Fortune, 456 Pa. 365, 369, 318 A.2d 327, 329 (1974); Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 231 Pa. Super. 327, 333, 331 A.2d 856, 860 (1974). See also: Commonwealth v. Chenet, 473 Pa. 181, 373 A.2d 1107 (1977); Commonwealth v. Davis, 444 Pa. 11, 280 A.2d 119 (1971); Commonwealth v. Macolino, 302 Pa. Super. 96, 448 A.2d 543 (1982); Commonwealth v. Hannan, 229 Pa. Super. 540, 331 A.2d 503 (1974).
In the instant case, the question is a close one because a prison cell, by its very nature, does not permit the occupant to have exclusive control thereof. Commonwealth v. Crowley, 259 Pa. Super. 204, 209, 393 A.2d 789, 791 (1978). However, the contraband in this case was not merely in the cell but either inside or among items of the occupant's personal clothing. At the time when the search was made, the door of the cell was closed but unlocked, and the cell was unoccupied. Appellant had been summoned and was present when the marijuana was found. The evidence did not disclose that other prisoners had reason to enter appellant's cell or that other prisoners had in fact done so. ...