Commonwealth v. Sanes

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that appellant’s knowledge of the guns and the fact that appellant showed police where the guns were located was sufficient to demonstrate that appellant had constructive possession of the guns
• holding: “two or more individuals can jointly possess the same . . . firearm”
• observing that “ ‘close proximity’ does not easily lend itself to precise definition”
• stating it is possible for two people to have joint constructive possession of contraband
• “Defendant’s contention that the alternatives following the word ‘whether’ in the statute are additional requirements beyond ‘physical possession or control’ is untenable. The word ‘whether’ does not mean ‘and.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).