[align=left][size=+1]4)
Pruitt v. Commonwealth, ___Va. ___S.E.2d__,__ (2007)[/size][/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]"By contrast, in this case, the issue is whether a weapon is concealed "about [the] person" of the defendant as contemplated by Code
§ 18.2-308(A) when he places it into a closed compartment inside a vehicle as he is exiting the vehicle. In all previous cases decided by this Court and the Court of Appeals construing the term "about his person" where the weapon was not concealed by or in the defendant's clothing, the issue was whether the weapon remained "so accessible as to afford prompt and immediate use" by the defendant while it was concealed.
Sutherland, 109 Va. at 835, 65 S.E. at 15....The undisputed facts in the instant case are clearly distinguishable from those in
Schaaf,
Leith, and Watson. [/align]
[align=left]
There simply is no evidence demonstrating that Pruitt remained in the vehicle for any appreciable length of time beyond that necessary to place his pistol in the console compartment. Granting all reasonable inferences to the Commonwealth, the evidence established that Pruitt placed the pistol inside the console compartment as he was exiting his vehicle. Once he exited the vehicle and closed the door, the pistol was no longer accessible to him so as to afford "prompt and immediate use." Thus, we hold that at no time while the pistol was concealed inside the console compartment was it "about [Pruitt's] person" as required by the statute."[/align]
[align=left]
5) "Appellant Robert B. Leith was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Code 18.2-308. Leith contends that because his pistol was in the locked console of his automobile, the pistol was not a concealed weapon carried "about his person" and was not "readily accessible to him." We disagree and affirm his conviction." - Leith v. Commonwealth 17 Va. App 621 (1994) [/align]
[align=left]
[size=+1]See Also: Weatherford v. Commonwealth, Va . App., (2005) ( Darkness does not allow gun to be in plain view?) [/size][/align]
[align=left]
[size=+1]6)[/size][size=+1] "Handbags are made in various sizes, colors and styles, and some are designed to carry a great number of articles deemed necessary or convenient by the carrier. The bags are often supported by shoulder straps and are easily opened and closed by devices such as zippers, buckles or stays. A pistol carried in such a bag is not only near and about the carrier's person, hidden from common observation, but in some handbags it is so accessible that it could be fired without being removed therefrom. "
t is so connected with the person as to be readily accessible for use or surprise if desired.. . ." Sutherland, supra, 109 Va. at 835, 65 S.E. at 15.[/size][/align]
A gun in a saddlebag, although not readily accessible, did provide a measure of protection to a horseman traveling primarily in rural areas. It did not pose a serious and immediate threat to others. A gun in a shoulder bag or a large handbag is accessible and could pose a major problem and danger to the general public." [size=+1]Schaaf v. Commonwealth, (1979) [/size]
[align=center]Constructive Possession of Concealed Firearm [/align]
[align=left]Aldeshawn Gadsen v. Commonwealth, Va. App. (2005)[/align]
[align=left]"To support a conviction based upon constructive possession, "the Commonwealth must point to evidence of acts, statements, or conduct of the accused or other facts or circumstances which tend to show that the defendant was aware of both the presence and character of the substance and that it was subject to his dominion and control." Powers v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 474, 476, 316 S.E.2d 739, 740 (1984). Possession "need not always be exclusive. The defendant may share it with one or more." Josephs v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 87, 89, 390 S.E.2d 491, 497 (1990) (en banc). However, mere proximity to a controlled item, such as a gun or narcotics, is not legally sufficient by itself to establish dominion and control. Wright v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 669, 670, 232 S.E.2d 733, 734 (1977); Fogg v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 394, 395, 219 S.E.2d 672, 673 (1975)...Thus, the evidence proved only that appellant was an occupant of a vehicle and in close proximity to the hidden revolver. This circumstantial evidence is legally insufficient to prove possession. See Powers, 227 Va. at 476, 316 S.E.2d at 740; Hancock, 21 Va. App. at 472, 465 S.E.2d at 141-42; see also Myers v. Commonwealth, 43 Va. App. 113, 121-23, 596 S.E.2d 536, 540 (2004) (applying Hancock to reverse conviction for passenger's constructive possession of firearm secreted on passenger's floorboard inside blanket)."[/align]
