Smallwood v. Com.

Summary

The court affirmed Smallwood's conviction for possessing a firearm after a felony conviction, holding that the evidence sufficiently established constructive possession. Smallwood knew the firearm was present and understood its character, and its location in plain view beside his leg in a small vehicle supported an inference that it was subject to his dominion and control despite Barnett's ownership. The court also held that joint possession need not be exclusive and that the Commonwealth was not required to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as a separate evidentiary test.