Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Clifford Lum’s convictions for possession of ammunition and possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited. The Court held that sufficient circumstantial evidence supported a finding that Lum knowingly constructively possessed the prohibited items. The Court also held that Lum waived his argument concerning the timing of the trial court’s ruling on his motion for judgment of acquittal and, in any event, found no prejudicial plain error.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the State presented sufficient evidence during its case-in-chief to establish that Lum knowingly possessed the ammunition and brass knuckles.
- Whether the Superior Court committed reversible error by deferring its ruling on Lum's motion for judgment of acquittal until after the defense presented evidence.
- Whether Lum's argument concerning the timing of the ruling was waived because it was raised only in a footnote and, alternatively, whether any error constituted plain or prejudicial error.
Holdings
- The State presented sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Lum knowingly constructively possessed the ammunition and brass knuckles.
- The Superior Court's failure to rule on the motion at the close of the State's case did not require reversal because Lum did not fairly present the argument, did not object to the deferral, and the delay was harmless in light of the sufficiency of the State's case-in-chief.
Key quotations
“Constructive possession requires the State to show that the defendant “knew the location” of the objects, “had the ability to exercise dominion and control,” and “intended to exercise dominion and control” over them.” (101 A.3d at 971)
“The circumstantial evidence was therefore sufficient to satisfy the State’s burden of proof that Lum knowingly possessed the prohibited items.” (101 A.3d at 971)
“Arguments in footnotes do not constitute raising an issue in the ‘body’ of the opening brief.” (101 A.3d at 972)
“No such fundamental issue was implicated here by the delay in the Superior Court’s consideration of the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.” (101 A.3d at 973)
Factual background
Police discovered ammunition and brass knuckles in the automobile Lum was driving. Lum had possessed and controlled the vehicle for a long period, his personal property was scattered throughout it, and property belonging to him was located in the same areas where the contraband was found. Both prohibited items were within reach of the driver's seat, which Lum occupied when the vehicle was stopped. During his own case, Lum also admitted that he knew the brass knuckles were in the vehicle.
Procedural history
The Superior Court of Delaware, sitting as the trier of fact, convicted Lum of possession of ammunition and possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited. Lum moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the State's case-in-chief lacked sufficient evidence that he knowingly possessed the prohibited items. The Superior Court denied the motion, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.