The gun was in the glove box of the car which is registered to my sister and my prints were not found on it.. unlawful carrying of a pistol is a misdemeanor in south Carolina my original charges is burglary 3d degree and petite larceny I paid all my fines and fees off for probation and the court...

I 4got to add my sister came to scene it which all stem from a seat belt violation and told the police officer that gun and car was hers which it really is, I had no idea she even had a gun or I don't know if its her boyfriends or what but my first time seeing the gun was when they pulled me over and puller it out of the glove box.. do you think the judge will take into consideration that the gun was unloaded and in a locked glove box?? Just a little curious never in this kind of trouble I previous had citation from probation about fees and fines and had to go to court is that the same as a probation violation??

If your first crime as a felony, this is now a felon in possession of a fire arm and will be a felony and normally get you min of 5 years in prison. You need a serious attorney.

Does not matter who the gun belonged to , does not matter if you knew or did not know it was there. If you were in the car and it was in the car ( even the trunk, if you had a key to the truck) you are guilty, They don't have to prove it was your gun, they don't have to prove you held it, they don't have to have finger prints on it. Your sister claim it was here does not make any difference. This is one of the statue laws, intent does not matter, just pure access to the gun. So think of the law as you had access to it, ( that is how possession is defined in terms of conviction for this.

I will give you an example, my son, was on probation for a felony, he had a old non firing shot gun that belonged to our family on his wall. It was rusted shut, and you could not even open it to load it. There were no shells in the house. This gun was hanging on the wall, as part of the rustic theme..

They turned it over to the Feds, since under federal law there is even less evidence needed to convict. He was given 10 years for a gun that could never shoot, with no bullets in the house. A note, he had most likely the best criminal attorney in Mo at the time. The best they got was reduced sentence to only have to serve 5 years which was the state max sentence at the time.

I got a $775 ticket for the unlawful carrying of a pistol which is a misdemeanor in South Carolina which my lawyer got reduced from a felony to misdemeanor I had the charge of felon possession of a firearm which was thrown out the police tried turn it over to the feds but they didn't pick it up my lawyer is also a state rep.. I know felons that got gun charges on probation got fines and extra probation time I just want to know what's up with case

You are about as lucky as a person gets, if you just pay a fine or even get a few months in jail, consider this a early Christmas gift,

Normally you would be in prison for years for this, you are guilty, not a doubt in my mind of the violation

Also here in SC we have constructive possession and actual possession meaning if the police finds something on your person is actual possession and if they find something in a car or house that's constructive possession.. with actual possession they just have to prove you had it with constructive possession they have to prove you had prior knowledge of it and you have to be the owner of that house or car or you have to have dominant control of the car meaning you're not the owner but you drive it everyday... but I do have a question does a lawyer usually inform you if you are facing jail time? Because mine just said he would take care of it

Also in your son's case he had knowledge of the gun because it was in plain view also if it was his house that means he had dominant control over the house that's the second thing and his lawyer knew that before taking the case that's why the best he could do was five years off the sentence... but hey five years is a lot better than 10 or 15 so he is also Lucky

I'm not one of those people who just blurt out laws with no proof to back it up lol.. but here something to back up the possession laws out here ----




THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

The State, Respondent,

v.

Ted Lee Heath, Appellant.

Appeal from York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Opinion No. 26200
Heard April 6, 2006 – Filed August 14, 2006

REVERSED

James W. Boyd, of Boyd & Jordan, of Rock Hill, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr. all of Columbia, and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

CHIEF JUSTICE TOAL: A jury found Ted Lee Heath (Appellant) guilty of trafficking in crack cocaine. This appealed followed. We reverse and hold that Appellant was entitled to a directed verdict because the State failed to present evidence that Appellant was in constructive possession of crack cocaine.

Factual / Procedural Background

Appellant, who was twenty-two years old at the time of the arrest, lived in a house with his mother and a young child. Appellant's mother owned the house.

The police obtained a warrant to search for crack in and around the house. When the police arrived at the house to execute the warrant, Appellant and his brother were outside in front of the house. Appellant appeared to have just finished washing his car in front of the house. Appellant remained by the car in front of the house as the officers approached.

Upon the police officers' arrival, Appellant's brother immediately ran into the house and locked himself in the bathroom. After Appellant's brother was restrained, the police discovered crack cocaine and approximately two thousand, five hundred dollars in cash. In addition, the officers discovered scales and a small crack rock in the house. Further, officers discovered numerous plastic baggies; allegedly the type used by crack dealers.

Additionally, and at the center of this appeal, a police dog discovered a car-washing mitt in a recycling bin near the back door of the house containing 43.48 grams of crack cocaine.

A jury convicted Appellant of trafficking crack cocaine and Appellant was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment. We certified this case from the court of appeals pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCACR. Accordingly, the issue before this Court is:

Did the trail court err in failing to direct a verdict in favor of Appellant because of the State's failure to establish an essential element of the crime?

Law / Analysis

A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to present evidence of the offense charged. State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 97, 544 S.E.2d 30, 36 (2001). In determining whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for directed verdict, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Ballenger, 322 S.C. 196, 198, 470 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1996).

The State alleges that Appellant violated South Carolina Code section 44-53-375(C). The Code provides that a “person … who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of ten grams or more of … crack cocaine … is guilty of” trafficking in crack cocaine. The record reflects that the police found 43.48 grams of crack cocaine at Appellant's residence. The State does not dispute that Appellant was not in actual possession of the crack. Accordingly, the issue presented is whether the State proved that Appellant was knowingly in constructive possession of crack.

Mere presence is insufficient to prove constructive possession. State v. Tabory, 260 S.C. 355, 364, 196 S.E.2d 111, 113 (1973). In order to prove constructive possession, the “State must show a defendant had dominion and control, or the right to exercise dominion and control over” the [illegal substance]. State v. Halyard, 274 S.C. 397, 400, 264 S.E.2d 483, 486 (1980) (emphasis added). Further, the State may establish constructive possession by either circumstantial or direct evidence. Id. The defendant's knowledge and possession may be inferred if the substance was found on premises under his control. State v. Adams, 291 S.C. 132, 135, 353 S.E.2d 483, 486 (1987) (emphasis added).

In the present case, the police discovered crack in a car-washing mitt in a recycling bin outside near the back door of the house. The State presented no direct or circumstantial evidence linking Appellant to the 43.48 grams of crack. As a result, the question becomes whether Appellant had dominion and control over the property where the crack was found.

We hold that the State failed to present evidence that Appellant could exercise dominion and control over the area where the crack was found. Appellant lived in the home where the crack was found. However, the home is owned by Appellant's mother. As a result, it is arguable that Appellant merely had a right to access the area where the crack was found, not actual dominion and control of the property.

Conclusion

Accordingly, we reverse Appellant's conviction because the State failed to establish an essential element of the crime charged.

MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ. concur.

I believe this also applies with Federal Law too... ------The Seventh Circuit had only one new opinion in a criminal case last week, but, fortunately, it was an interesting one. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), it is a federal crime for felons to possess a firearm. Proof of the crime is easy enough when a felon is found actually carrying a gun. But what if the gun is nowhere on his person, but merely, say, in his home?

In practice, the federal courts have interpreted the law expansively so as to encompass a broad range of circumstances beyond actual possession. Thus, under the doctrine of ”constructive possession,” a felon may indeed be convicted based on the discovery of a firearm in his home.

But, as the Seventh Circuit made clear last week in United States v. Katz (No. 08-2341), even the doctrine of constructive possession has its limits.

Katz, a felon, had some sort of altercation with Grice, his girlfiend, at her home. Responding to 911 calls, police arrived at the scene, detained Katz, and searched Grice's home. The search revealed, among other items of interest, drugs and a shotgun with Katz's fingerprints on it. At trial, Katz stipulated that he had been convicted of a felony prior to the incident at Grice's home, and a jury subsequently found him guilty of being a felon in possession.

On appeal, Katz argued that the evidence was insufficient to estabish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Seventh Circuit, per Judge Rovner, agreed.

Although Katz's fingerprints were on the shotgun, it was impossible to tell how old the fingerprints were. Nor did the evidence at trial establish when exactly Katz had become a felon, other than that it happened sometime before the altercation with Grice. For all the Seventh Circuit could tell, Katz might have handled the gun long before his felony conviction. Thus, the evidence was insufficient to establish actual possession of a firearm by a felon.

What of constructive possession? If the gun had been found in Katz's residence, then the government would have been home free. But are we prepared to extend the constructive possession doctrine to the residence of a felon's girlfriend? Is it fair to infer that a guy really has control over all of the property in his girlfriend's home?

The Seventh Circuit answered no, at least on the facts of Katz:

There is no evidence whatsoever that Katz resided at the premises, or even that he had ever stayed at the home for any period. The only evidence presented indicates that the home belonged to Grice exclusively: the lease was in her name; she did not want to leave him in the home when she left for work; she called police to have him removed from her home; and she possessed the keys. He apparently did not have keys because he took hers when he left the premises. There are none of the indicia of joint possession of the premises that we have found in other cases. (7)

In trying to show constructive possession of the premises, the government relied on the fact that Katz carried $1,800 in cash at the time of his arrest. The goverment's theory was that (a) drug dealers often carry large amounts of cash, (b) drugs were found in Grice's home, (c) therefore, Katz was dealing drugs from Grice's home, (d) drug dealers often keep guns around the places where they deal drugs, and (e) therefore, the gun at Grice's home must have been Katz's. Just stating the government's argument reveals how speculative the reasoning was, and the Seventh Circuit appropriately found it insufficient to support a criminal conviction. Interestingly, then, this is the second week in a row in which the Seventh Circuit has rejected inferences of specific criminal activity drawn from the fact the defendant happened to be carrying a few hundred dollars at the time of his arrest. (For last week's case, see my post here.)

Ok well, you seem to know everything you need to know... so what kind of help did you want here?

I can tell you this... all that written bs that you copied and pasted only goes so far. It is against Federal Law for a convicted felon to possess a firearm... no matter what you copied and pasted, no matter what you think, it could go against you. If they want to say you were in possession of that handgun, and they want to charge you for it, they are going to do so. Then, law or not, it will be up to you and your expensive lawyers to try to prove you had no knowledge of it and that you weren't actually in possession of it. Good luck with that.

No b.s. this is FEDERAL LAW that they have to up hold and this is real case

I'm wondering why you asked this question since you seem to think you already know the law, and what will happen in your case.

Actually it's up to them to prove I had prior knowledge of it and it being conceal in a glove box doesn't say much also they have to prove I was in dominion or control or owned it dominion control would mean I drove her car everyday which I didn't or that I owned the car which I don't.. so then they would have to rely on direct evidence such as finger prints , gun in plain view , or somebody testifying that they previously saw me with the. Gun... Which they can't do none of the above because I really didn't knowingly possess the gun which evidence shows theses... THESE FACTS PERTAINS TO THE FELON POS FIREARM CHARGE NOT PROBATION VIOLATION... which the federal law states " a felon can't trade, sale , or knowingly possess firearms"

Actually it's up to them to prove I had prior knowledge of it and it being conceal in a glove box doesnt say much also they have to prove I was in dominion or control or owned it dominion control would mean I drove her car everyday which I didn't or that I owned the car which I don't ..so then they would have to rely on direct evidence such as finger prints , gun in plain view , or somebody testifying that they previously saw me with the. Gun... Which they can't do none of the above because I really didn't knowingly possess the gun which evidence shows theses ...THESE FACTS PERTAINS TO THE FELON POS FIREARM CHARGE NOT PROBATION VIOLATION...which the federal law states " a felon can't trade, sale , or knowingly possess firearms"

And I ask again. If you think you know so much about the law, then why did you come here to ask?

Since you believe you have all the answers, nothing we can add or say will convince you otherwise. If you want a debate, then open a thread in the discussion forum.

You don't want advice, but, you've been given your answer. I think this question should be closed.

I have to second that. Why did you come here to ask a question, and then answer your own question, with cut and paste information. You didn't actually spout all of this off from memory if you are felon (or possible felon).

Anyway Fr. Chuck used to be in law enforcement. ghee803; and you shouldn't make a habit of dissing experts on this site.

>This thread is now closed forever and forevermore.<