NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
23-P-166
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
CANDI A. DUMAS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of four
charges of improper storage of a firearm, G. L. c. 140, § 131L,
and one charge of reckless endangerment of a child, G. L.
c. 265, § 13L. The central issue in this appeal is whether
there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant constructively possessed the firearms.1
1 The defendant challenges one of the firearm storage convictions
on the additional ground that there was insufficient evidence
that the particular weapon (a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol
manufactured by Sig Sauer) was improperly stored. The
Commonwealth concedes that the evidence was insufficient as to
this charge, an assessment with which we agree after reviewing
the trial transcript. That conviction is accordingly reversed.
We note that the record on appeal does not show which of the
four firearm storage convictions was based on the improper
storage of the firearm manufactured by Sig Sauer. The
information does not appear on the trial court docket, the
verdict slip has not been included in the appellate record, the
delivery of the verdict was not transcribed, and the trial
transcript does not otherwise reveal the information. The
Taking the evidence, together with the reasonable inferences to
be drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, we conclude that the evidence of constructive
possession was sufficient.2 However, we conclude that the
evidence of improper storage was insufficient as to one of the
four firearms. Accordingly, we reverse one of the four firearm
storage convictions. The remaining convictions are affirmed.
Viewed through the familiar lens set out in Commonwealth v.
Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 678 (1979), the evidence permitted the
jury to find the following. In December 2019, the police chief
of Warren notified the defendant by letter that her license to
carry firearms was being revoked. Accordingly, the defendant
went to the police station on December 16, 2019, to surrender
her license. While at the station, the defendant provided
information about "the particular handgun that was involved in
an incident [for which] she was turning in her" license. She
also informed the police that there were additional firearms in
her home. The defendant also stated that she was the only
person in the home who possessed a valid license to carry. The
parties should assist the trial court in determining which count
is based on the .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol manufactured
by Sig Sauer.
2 The defendant makes no argument on appeal regarding the
conviction for reckless endangerment of a child and that
conviction is accordingly affirmed without discussion.
2
defendant lived in the home with her estranged husband and her
fifteen year old stepson.
The police then went to the defendant's home to retrieve
any firearms that were present. The defendant told the police
that a .22 caliber revolver was located in a dresser drawer of
her bedroom. The police located that unsecured loaded revolver
where the defendant had indicated they would. Women's clothing
was located in the same dresser as the gun. A shotgun was
located in a corner of the bedroom, and a bolt action rifle was
on the floor next to the bed. Both firearms were loaded and
unsecured.
The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
concerning her constructive possession of the firearms. To
prove constructive possession, the Commonwealth was required to
establish "that the defendant had 'knowledge [of the weapon]
coupled with the ability and intention to exercise dominion and
control [over it].'" Commonwealth v. Blevins, 56 Mass. App. Ct.
206, 210-211 (2002), quoting Commonwealth v. Kitchings, 40 Mass.
App. Ct. 591, 599 (1996). The judge instructed the jurors that
they could consider evidence "about the location of the firearm,
rifle, or shotgun, the location of the defendant, and any other
relevant evidence to determine whether the defendant had control
of the firearm, rifle, or shotgun."
3
There is no question that the evidence was sufficient to
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew
about the firearms; after all, she told the police about them.
The evidence was also sufficient as to her intention and ability
to control the firearms. The defendant was the only person in
the household with a firearms license, which was a fact from
which the jury could reasonably infer her intent to control the
firearms located in her home. The defendant's ability to
control the firearms could be inferred from the fact that she
told the police where the firearms were located and directed
them to their location once they arrived at the home, and from
the fact that the guns were located in her bedroom. Indeed, two
of the guns were in plain view close to her bed, and one was in
a dresser drawer containing women's clothes. Since the
defendant was the only woman living in the house, the jury could
reasonably infer that the female clothing was hers. Where, as
here, a defendant "has a 'particular relationship' to the
location within a home or apartment in which the contraband is
found, the defendant is adequately linked to that contraband,
and the jury may reasonably infer that the defendant had
knowledge of the contraband, as well as the ability and
intention to exercise dominion and control over it."
Commonwealth v. Proia, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 824, 833 (2018),
4
quoting Commonwealth v. Clarke, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 502, 506
(1998).
With respect to the four convictions of improper storage of
a firearm, the judgment on the firearm storage conviction for
the .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol manufactured by Sig Sauer
is reversed, the verdict is set aside, and the judgment shall
enter for the defendant. The remaining judgments of conviction
are affirmed.
So ordered.
By the Court (Vuono,
Wolohojian & Toone, JJ.3),
Assistant Clerk
Entered: February 22, 2024.
3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
5