Commonwealth v. Haskins

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that possession need not be exclusive, and two or more individuals may constructively possess the same contraband at the same time
• holding that the fact that the contraband is located in an area usually accessibly only to the defendant may lead to an inference that he placed it there or knew of his presence
• stating that the fact that another person may also have control and access does not eliminate the defendant’s constructive possession
• holding that the fact that another person may also may have control and access does not eliminate the defendant’s constructive possession, as two - 12 - J-S02016-21 actors may have joint control and equal access and thus both may constructively possess contraband
• holding another person’s control and access does not eliminate the defendant's constructive possession, as two actors may have joint control and equal access and thus both may constructively possess contraband
• stating: “The fact that another person may also have control and access does not eliminate the defendant’s constructive possession; two actors may have joint control and equal access and thus both may constructively possess the contraband”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).