Commonwealth v. Stenhouse

¶ 1 I dissent. Appellant offers a rather interesting esoteric argument. If I understand Appellant’s argument correctly, Appellant essentially asserts that “possession” is a continuing offense and is not logically or theoretically related to quantity, packaging, subdivision or location. Thus, Appellant asserts that, essentially, he was in “possession” of only one quantity of cocaine and heroin simultaneously, although housed at two separate locations. According to Appellant’s argument, such circumstances would allow only a single conviction for the continuing “possession” and “possession with…