Mere presence in an area where a firearm is found, or mere association with an individual found to be in possession of a firearm, does not necessarily establish possession. State v. Heacox, 543 So.2d 101, 105-06 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1989). Clearly, defendant was aware of the gun's presence.
Id. at 339. In State v. Heacox, 543 So.2d 101 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1989), this court reversed the defendant's conviction under La.R.S. 14:95.1, holding the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant had a general intent to possess a firearm. We stated:
However, when the perpetrator has not carried the firearm on his person, the state must show that the defendant's intent amounted to an intent to possess rather than a mere acquiescence to the fact that there was a firearm in his presence. State v. Woods, supra; State v. Heacox, 543 So.2d 101 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1989). At the time of this offense, the penalty possession of a firearm by a convicted felon was three to ten years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence.
When the defendant has not carried the firearm on his person, the State has the burden of proving the defendant's intent amounted to an intent to possess rather than a mere acquiescence that there was a firearm in his presence. State v. Heacox, 543 So.2d 101 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1989). In Heacox, the defendant argued the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction under LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 14:95.1, because the gun was partially covered by a holster, and it was lying on the car seat between him and the driver/owner of the car.
Fisher, 94–2255, pp. 4–5, 669 So.2d 462–463. The Fisher court relied in part on State v. Heacox, 543 So.2d 101 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989), another opinion that decided that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In that matter, an undercover police officer sought to purchase marijuana from the defendant, who was a passenger in a truck driven by the owner.
However, when the perpetrator has not carried the firearm on his person, the state must show that the defendant's intent amounted to an intent to possess rather than a mere acquiescence to the fact that there was a firearm in his presence. State v. Woods, supra; State v. Heacox, 543 So.2d 101 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1989). * * *
State v. LeBlanc, 01-1503 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/5/02), 819 So.2d 424; State v. Fisher, 94-2255 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/15/95), 669 So.2d 460; State v. Heacox, 543 So.2d 101 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1989), and State v. Evans, 29,675, 29,676 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/24/97), 700 So.2d 1039. Error Patent
Id. at 462. Finally, in State v. Heacox, 543 So.2d 101 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1989), the court held there was no evidence that the defendant was aware of the gun, which was partially exposed on the seat of the vehicle between the defendant and the driver-owner of the vehicle. The gun belonged to the mother of the driver.
4 Cir. 1987); State v. Trahan, 425 So.2d 1222 (La. 1983). State v. Heacox, 543 So.2d 101, 105-06 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1989). La.R.S. 14:95.1 requires only general criminal intent, which means that the circumstances indicate that the accused "in the ordinary course of human experience, must have adverted to the prescribed criminal consequences as reasonably certain to result from his act or failure to act."
Defendant claims that the State did not prove that he had possession or the requisite intent and cites one case that has held the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant was a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. In State v. Heacox, 543 So.2d 101 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1989), writ denied, 99-0822 (La. 9/3/99), 747 So.2d 534, the Third Circuit held that the evidence was insufficient to find that a gun was subject to the defendant's dominion and control. In Heacox, a gun was partially covered by a holster and lying equidistant between defendant and the driver of the vehicle.