Tevin Abercrombie was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after Boston police discovered a loaded pistol with an obliterated serial number under the front passenger seat of a Ford Fusion in which he was riding. Following a trial that ended in a guilty verdict, the district court denied Abercrombie's motions for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial. On appeal, Abercrombie argued that the evidence only proved his presence in the car and was insufficient to establish possession, while also attempting to challenge the statute's validity under the Second Amendment.
The court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, asking whether any rational factfinder could find the elements of the offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The opinion distinguishes between actual possession, which requires hands-on contact, and constructive possession, which requires the power to exercise dominion and control over the object. The court found that mere proximity to the gun was insufficient, but the totality of the evidence supported constructive possession. Key factors included Abercrombie's exclusive control of the front passenger seat, the specific placement of the gun consistent with a right-handed person sitting in that seat, and the fact that no one else entered the front seat. Significantly, the court highlighted that Abercrombie wore a single latex glove on his right hand while touching store items with his ungloved hand, suggesting an intent to avoid leaving fingerprints on the contraband. Additionally, video evidence showed Abercrombie repeatedly looking toward the floor mat area where the gun was located. Regarding the Second Amendment claim, the court determined it was waived because the appellant did not develop a specific legal argument, merely noting 'ongoing legal discussion.' Finally, the court affirmed the revocation of supervised release, noting that the evidence sufficient for a criminal conviction beyond a reasonable doubt also met the lower preponderance of the evidence standard required for revocation.
The decision reinforces that constructive possession of a firearm can be established through a combination of circumstantial evidence, including exclusive control of the vehicle area, the positioning of the weapon, and suspicious behavior such as wearing a single glove to avoid fingerprints. It clarifies that defendants must explicitly develop Second Amendment arguments on appeal to avoid waiver. The ruling stands as a precedent for sufficiency challenges in felon-in-possession cases where the firearm is found in close proximity to the defendant but not in their immediate physical grasp.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download