Source: cases/18usc922/f3d-683-1314-us-v-cochran.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_683/1314_01/index.html
We have indicated that the essence of constructive possession is the power to control the contraband itself and that control of the premises simply permits an inference of that power.
Such a juxtaposition could create an inference that constructive possession, as defined by the government’s instruction, lacks an intentionality requirement.
In conclusion, although we disapprove of the constructive possession instruction given to the jury, we do not find that under the circumstances of this particular case it misled the jury or prejudiced Cochran.
casedsl 1 case /f3d/683/1314-01 name United States v. Cochran cite 683 F.3d 1314 (2012) court United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit date 2012-06-14 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_683/1314_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_683.jsonl sha1=3f3af6fcb2bd9403ffb2351404ab806228bb4623 chars=21946 law 18usc922 (g)(1) role background posture criminal; jury ACQUITTED the defendant on the 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession-of-ammunition count (count one) and convicted on two 21 U.S.C. 841 drug counts; he appeals only the drug convictions (constructive-possession instruction, Rule 404(b), sufficiency); affirmed result not-decided element possession : not-reached role rule-announced scope procedural count count one (ammunition in a bedroom dresser drawer); jury acquittal, not reviewed theory constructive possession inferred from control of the premises (jury instruction common to the ammunition and drug counts) variant constructive/contraband-in-residence-defendant-has-key-to fact @1660..1750 [supports] | Inside the house, authorities found ammunition in a dresser drawer in one of the bedrooms; fact @4364..4480 [supports] | Witt testified that he searched Cochran and found in Cochran’s pocket a key that unlocked the door of the residence. fact @4481..4604 [cuts-against] | He also obtained Cochran’s driver’s license, which reflects that Cochran’s address is 116, rather than 110, Lucille Avenue. fact @14590..14914 [cuts-against] | The jury’s decision to convict Cochran of the drug charges but acquit him of the ammunition charges demonstrates an understanding of that instruction, given that the ammunition was hidden in a bedroom dresser drawer while the drugs were located in plain sight in the converted garage and present in common areas of the home. rule @12451..12634 | We have indicated that the essence of constructive possession is the power to control the contraband itself and that control of the premises simply permits an inference of that power. rule @11784..11941 | Such a juxtaposition could create an inference that constructive possession, as defined by the government’s instruction, lacks an intentionality requirement. held @21190..21399 | In conclusion, although we disapprove of the constructive possession instruction given to the jury, we do not find that under the circumstances of this particular case it misled the jury or prejudiced Cochran. gloss Not a 922(g) ruling. The court disapproves (but finds non-prejudicial) an instruction that "constructive possession also occurs if a person exercises ownership, dominion, or control over a thing or premises concealing the thing": premises control only permits an inference, and the knowledge/intention requirement must not be dropped. The instruction governed count one as well (the jury asked whether it applied to "knowingly possess" in count one), but the jury acquitted on that count and the sufficiency holding concerns only the drugs. The fact lines are trial evidence bearing on the ammunition; no court weighed them for 922(g). misfit Negative finding: the opinion does not decide possession, commerce or knowledge under 922(g). The only 922(g) count ended in a jury acquittal that is not (and could not be) on appeal; the affirmed sufficiency holding is about cocaine under 21 U.S.C. 841. misfit A jury acquittal has no slot: it is a lower-court outcome against the claimant on an unidentified element, with no finding and no reasons (basis table has nothing for "not proved to the jury's satisfaction"); `result` has no value for "claimant lost below, claim not before this court", so not-decided is used. misfit The constructive-possession rule is cross-statutory (the same instruction served the 841 and 922(g) counts); the notation cannot say that a rule block under one law is really a ruling made on another law's conviction. misfit The appellate court uses the acquittal as evidence that the jury understood the instruction (hidden ammunition vs. drugs in plain view); that inferential use of a verdict is recorded only as a cuts-against fact line.