What is the standard of proof to prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt in a joint constructive possession case?
Get Legal Help Today
Compare Quotes From Top Companies and Save
Secured with SHA-256 Encryption
What is the standard of proof to prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt in a joint constructive possession case?
Let’s say someone is charged with illegal downloads (e.g. illegal music, obscene videos) and the only evidence is instant message conversations that may indicate who was using the computer at the time the downloading of the files occurred or viewed. Although the evidence may have probative value and be presumptively admissible in court, would more evidence be needed to show intent beyond a reasonable doubt? Would there be joint constructive possession issues as multiple people had access to the computer and lived on the premises of where the computer was found?
Asked on June 29, 2012 under Criminal Law, Pennsylvania
Answers:
Andrew Goldberg
Answered 11 years ago | Contributor
Yes, there would be an issue as toconstructive possession. However, one or more defendants can be foudng guilty on a theory of joint constructive possession. The Commonwealth must prove that you had the power or ability to control and intended to exercise that control. Your argument would be, just that, there were multiple occupants or tenants residing in the house, all having equal access to the computer. But, If the instant messages demonstrate that you were ( beyond a reasonable doubt ) using the computer at the time of rhe file downloading, that is very damaging ( incriminating ) evidence.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Answer(s) provided above are for general information only. The attorney providing the answer was not serving as the attorney for the person submitting the question or in any attorney-client relationship with such person. Laws may vary from state to state, and sometimes change. Tiny variations in the facts, or a fact not set forth in a question, often can change a legal outcome or an attorney's conclusion. Although AttorneyPages.com has verified the attorney was admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction, he or she may not be authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction referred to in the question, nor is he or she necessarily experienced in the area of the law involved. Unlike the information in the Answer(s) above, upon which you should NOT rely, for personal advice you can rely upon we suggest you retain an attorney to represent you.