Criminal – Evidence supports firearm possession convictions

Where the defendant had custody and control over a firearm when an officer encountered him, and his conduct implied his guilty knowledge of the presence of the firearm, his firearm possession convictions were affirmed.

 Background                              

After a bench trial, the circuit court convicted Lionel Williams Jr., of possessing a firearm while distributing a controlled substance and possessing a firearm as a convicted violent felon. On appeal, Williams argues the evidence was insufficient to establish his constructive possession of the firearm.

Analysis

The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Williams possessed the firearm. Immediately after the police initiated the traffic stop, Williams attempted to deceive and avoid the officers. He first began erratically yelling that his wife was dying. When the officers told Williams to step to the back of the truck, he attempted to walk away completely. Williams then physically resisted his detention, forcing the officers to wrestle him to the ground.

Officer Mael located the firearm under the driver’s seat; part of the handle was in plain view. The gun was readily accessible to Williams when he was in the driver’s seat. Williams shouted an obscenity when he realized the officers had found the gun. The officers also recovered a large quantity of drugs from Williams’s person. A detective testified that firearms and narcotics have a common nexus. Williams’s erratic and evasive behavior, proximity to the firearm and possession of a large quantity of narcotics support the trial court’s conclusion that Williams was aware of the presence of the firearm and had dominion and control over it.

This court is unpersuaded by Williams’s contention that the evidence failed to prove his possession of the firearm because testimony by his son, Diante Johnson, that the firearm belonged to him, provided a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. “Merely because defendant’s theory of the case differs from that taken by the Commonwealth does not mean that every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence has not been excluded. What weight should be given evidence is a matter for the [factfinder] to decide.”

Here, Williams’s hypothesis of innocence rests on his claim that the firearm belonged to Johnson. But Johnson conceded at trial that both he and his father used the truck regularly. And when asked to confirm that the seized firearm was his, the son confirmed that the firearm appeared familiar, but it was more “beat up” than he remembered it. Furthermore, possession of a firearm “need not always be exclusive.”

The Commonwealth’s evidence showed that Williams had custody and control over the firearm when the officer encountered him. Williams’s conduct implied his guilty knowledge of the presence of the firearm. Given the circuit court’s discretion to weigh the credibility of the testimony in light of all the evidence, its rejection of Williams’s alleged hypothesis is not plainly wrong.

Affirmed.

Williams Jr. v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1675-24-1, April 21, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (White). From the Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake (Padrick Jr.). Monica Tuck, Assistant Public Defender (Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, on briefs), for appellant. Brooke I. Hettig, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-158. 7 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-7-158
Virginia Lawyers Weekly