Jamel Evans v. United States

I join the court’s resolution of the Fourth Amendment issue, but write to explain why I believe that the road to finding sufficiency of the evidence, based on con*895structive possession, is reasonably straight.

We have said that a fact-finder “is generally entitled to infer that a person exercises constructive possession over items found in his home,” or, more generally, found in premises he controls or occupies.1 On the facts here, therefore, the only circumstance that would dilute that inference, as applied to appellant Evans, would be a finding that he “share[d] the premises with others,”2…