Tevin Abercrombie was indicted in the District of Massachusetts for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The charges stemmed from an incident where Boston police officers stopped a Ford Fusion shortly after a drive-by shooting in Roxbury. Officers found a loaded pistol with an obliterated serial number under the front passenger seat, where Abercrombie was sitting. Although there were no fingerprints on the weapon, the jury convicted Abercrombie. He moved for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing the evidence only showed he was present in the car and that the statute was unconstitutional. The district court denied both motions, leading to this appeal.
The First Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, asking whether any rational factfinder could conclude that the government proved every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The court focused on the doctrine of constructive possession, which requires proof that the defendant knowingly had the power to exercise dominion and control over the weapon, even without physical contact. The court found that mere proximity was insufficient, but the totality of the evidence here was compelling. Key factors included Abercrombie's exclusive control of the front passenger seat, the gun's placement consistent with a right-handed person sitting there, and the fact that the gun was positioned where he could easily reach it. Crucially, the court highlighted that Abercrombie wore a latex glove on only his right hand, while the gun and ammunition had no fingerprints. This suggested an intent to avoid leaving DNA or prints, a gesture of control inconsistent with mere presence. Additionally, video evidence showed Abercrombie repeatedly bending toward the floor mat area where the gun was located. The court rejected the argument that the evidence required stacking inferences, noting that the jury was entitled to draw reasonable, common-sense inferences from the circumstantial record. Regarding the Second Amendment claim, the court held that Abercrombie waived the issue by failing to develop a substantive argument on appeal, relying only on the existence of 'ongoing legal discussion.' Finally, the court affirmed the revocation of his supervised release, noting that the evidence sufficient for criminal conviction also met the lower preponderance of the evidence standard required for revocation.
The decision reinforces that constructive possession of a firearm in a vehicle can be proven through circumstantial evidence, particularly when combined with suspicious behavior like wearing a single glove or repeatedly checking the location of the weapon. It clarifies that defendants must explicitly develop constitutional challenges on appeal or risk waiver. The ruling also confirms that a conviction sufficient for criminal guilt automatically satisfies the evidentiary threshold for revoking supervised release.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download