United States v. James P. Craven (1973)

green · 480 citation events across 33 courts. Showing the 50 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 50

Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

197420002026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green United States v. Rocky Houston (2016)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion

Id. at 945 ; United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.1973).

green United States v. Gustavo Guadarrama (2014)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion

Appx. 402, 409 (6th Cir.2014) (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.1973), abrogated on other grounds by Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 , 97 S.Ct. 1963 , 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977)).

green United States v. Terrance Walker (2013)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion

A weapon is “constructively” possessed if the government can show the defendant “knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329,1333 (6th Cir.1973).

green United States v. Robert Shull (2009)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion

Possession may be either actual or constructive, and it “it need not be exclusive and may be joint.” United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.1973) (citations omitted); United States v. Holt, 427 F.2d 1114, 1116 (8th Cir.1970).

green United States v. Lawon Carter (2026)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

Possession “need not be exclusive”—it can be “joint.” United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973).

green United States v. Jesse Fairley (2025)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

And “constructive possession exists when a person does not have actual possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” Gardner, 488 F.3d at 713 (alteration adopted) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Campbell, 549 F.3d 364, 374 (6th Cir. 2008); United States v. Bailey, 553 F.3d 940, 944 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting United S…

green United States v. Fredrick Johnson (2025)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

“Constructive possession” occurs when an individual “knowingly has the power and intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over [a firearm], either directly or through others.” Id. (citing United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973)).

green United States v. Edgar Rangel-Tapia (2024)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973), abrogated on other grounds by Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977).

green United States v. James Allen Bowers (2024)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

Constructive possession, in contrast, requires only that “the defendant ‘knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973), abrogated on other grounds by Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977)).

green United States v. David Martin (2022)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

By contrast, a person constructively possesses a gun when he “does not have possession but instead knowingly has the power and intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” Grubbs, 506 F.3d at 439 (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973)).

green United States v. Justin Martin (2022)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (holding that “[p]ossession . . . need not be exclusive”); United States v. Wheaton, 517 F.3d 350, 367 (6th Cir. 2008) (allowing joint possession of a firearm).

allowing joint possession of a firearm

green United States v. Kenneth Sadler (2022)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

“Constructive possession requires that a person knowingly have power and intention to exercise control over an object.” United States v. Critton, 43 F.3d 1089, 1096 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973)).

green United States v. DeShaun Jones (2021)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973), abrogated on other grounds by Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977).

green United States v. Demario Simpson (2021)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

“Both actual possession and constructive possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.” United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973), abrogated on other grounds by Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977).

green United States v. Gregory Raymore (2020)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

While actual possession “requires that the defendant have ‘immediate possession or control’ of the firearm[,] . . . ‘[c]onstructive possession exists when a person . . . knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.’” Id. (citation omitted) (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973), abrogated on other grounds by Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 56…

green United States v. Eloy Alonzo (2020)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

Possession may be actual or constructive, with constructive possession existing “when a person does not have actual possession but instead -4- No. 19-5549, United States v. Alonzo knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” United States v. Kincaide, 145 F.3d 771, 782 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973)).

green United States v. Demetrius Catching (2019)

Quote Authority · 6th Cir.

United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973) (“Constructive possession exists when a person does not have actual possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.”), abrogated on other -8- Case No. 18-5527, United States v. Catching grounds by Scarborough v. United States, 461 U.S. 563 (1977).

green United States v. Demetrius Catching (2019)

Quote Authority · 6th Cir.

green United States v. Timothy Workman (2018)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

As such, the government must present evidence that a firearm or ammunition was in the defendant’s “immediate possession or control.” United States v. Grubbs, 506 F.3d 434, 439 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973)).

green United States v. Romell Whiteside (2018)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

“A -20- No. 17-3727, United States v. Whiteside weapon is ‘constructively’ possessed if the government can show the defendant ‘knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973)).

green United States v. Theodore Elenniss (2018)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

The government presented a theory of constructive possession (and, indeed, an instruction), which exists where a person “knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over [a firearm], either directly or through others.” United States v. Bailey, 553 F.3d 940, 944 (6th Cir. 2009) (emphasis omitted) (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973)).

green United States v. Ramiah Jefferson (2018)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

Proof of actual possession requires evidence that the object was “in the immediate possession or control of the party,” while proof of constructive possession requires evidence that the person “knowingly ha[d] the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973), abrogated on other grounds by Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977…

green United States v. Sherman Brown (2017)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

The possession element of § 922(g)(1) can be satisfied by showing constructive possession, which exists if an individual “knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” United States v. Walker, 734 F.3d 451, 455 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.1973)).

green United States v. Jabron Thomas (2017)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973).

green United States v. Livertis Riley, IV (2017)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

Constructive possession means the defendant “knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” Id. (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973)).

green United States v. Jimmie White, II (2017)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

The government advanced its case against defendant based on a theory of constructive possession, which exists “when a person does not have actual possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973), abrogated on other grounds by Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 , 97 S.Ct. 1963 , 52 L.Ed.2d 582…

green United States v. Kelvin Crumpton (2016)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

This may be satisfied by showing that Crumpton had constructive possession of the ammunition, which “exists when a person does not have actual possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” United States v. Kincaide, 145 F.3d 771, 782 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973)), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1166 , 119 S.C…

green United States v. Ramon Gaytan, Jr. (2016)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

“A person who knowingly has direct physical control over a thing at a given time is then in actual possession of it,” United States v. Bailey, 553 F.3d 940, 944 (6th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Frederick, 406 F.3d 754, 765 (6th Cir.2005)), while “[constructive possession exists when a person does not have actual possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through …

green United States v. Jason Castle (2015)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.1973), abrogated on other grounds by Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 , 97 S.Ct. 1963 , 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977).

green United States v. Erik Thornton (2015)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

"A weapon is ‘constructively’ possessed if ... the defendant ‘knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.’” United States v. Walker, 734 F.3d 451, 455 (6th Cir.2013) (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.1973)).

green United States v. Raphael Harris (2015)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

A person has constructive possession if he “ ‘knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.’ ” Walker, 734 F.3d at 455 (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.1973)).

green United States v. Jason Castle (2015)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.1973), abrogated on other grounds by Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 , 97 S.Ct. 1963 , 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977).

green United States v. Marvin Hudgins (2014)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

Constructive possession exists when a person does not have actual possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.1973).

green United States v. Obiel Luna-Santillanes (2014)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

Possession of a firearm “may be either actual or constructive and it need not be exclusive but may be joint.” United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.1973), abrogated on other grounds by Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 , 97 S.Ct. 1963 , 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977).

green United States v. Donald Reynolds, Jr. (2013)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

An individual has constructive possession of a firearm if he “does not have actual possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” Ibid, (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.1973)).

green United States v. Gary Dotson (2011)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

“Constructive possession exists when a person does not have actual possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.1973), abrogated on other grounds by Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 , 97 S.Ct. 1963 , 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977).

green United States v. Ham (2011)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

United States v. Gibbs, 182 F.3d 408, 425 (6th Cir.1999) (citing United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.1973)).

green United States v. Rashidd Douglas (2010)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

“Possession may be either actual or constructive and it need not be exclusive but may be joint.” United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.1973).

green United States v. Morrison (2010)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

“Actual possession requires that the defendant have ‘immediate possession or control’ of the firearm.” Grubbs, 506 F.3d at 439 (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.1973)); see also United States v. Campbell, 549 F.3d 364, 374 (6th Cir.2008) (same).

green United States v. Jerry Morrison (2010)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

“Actual possession requires that the defendant have ‘immediate possession or control’ of the firearm.” Grubbs, 506 F.3d at 439 (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973)); see also United States v. Campbell, 549 F.3d 364, 374 (6th Cir. 2008) (same).

green United States v. Spencer (2010)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

“Constructive possession exists when a person does not have possession but instead knowingly has the power and intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” United States v. Grubbs, 506 F.3d 434, 439 (6th Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.1973)).

green United States v. Thomas (2016)

Rule Authority · E.D. Mich. · 2 citations in this opinion

United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.1973).

green Davis v. Burgess (2024)

Rule Authority · E.D. Mich.

The Sixth Circuit indicated that “[c]onstructive possession exists when a person does not have actual possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” Id. at 449 (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973) (alteration in original), abrogated on other grounds by Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977)).

alteration in original

green Brown v. Floyd (2023)

Rule Authority · E.D. Mich.

The Sixth Circuit notes that “[c]onstructive possession exists when a person does not have actual possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” Id. at 449 (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F. 2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973), abrogated on other grounds by Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977)).

green BELL v. McCauley (2023)

Rule Authority · E.D. Mich.

The Sixth Circuit notes that “[c]onstructive possession exists when a person does not have actual possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” Ibid. at 449 (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973), abrogated on other grounds by Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977)).

green Watson v. Nagy (2021)

Rule Authority · E.D. Mich.

green State of Tennessee v. Dwight Twarn Champion (2020)

Rule Authority · Tenn. Crim. App.

United States v. Craig, 522 F.2d 29, 32 (6th Cir. 1975) (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973)); see also State v. Williams, 623 S.W.2d 121, 125 (Tenn. Crim.

green State of Tennessee v. Gregory Gill (2019)

Rule Authority · Tenn. Crim. App.

United States v. Craig, 522 F.2d 29, 32 (6th Cir. 1975) (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973)); see also State v. Williams, 623 S.W.2d 121, 125 (Tenn. Crim.

green Dominique Dantwan Simons v. State of Tennessee (2017)

Rule Authority · Tenn. Crim. App.

United States v. Craig, 522 F.2d 29, 32 (6th Cir. 1975) (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973)); see also State v. Williams, 623 S.W.2d 121, 125 (Tenn. Crim.

green Haney v. Commonwealth (2016)

Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.

THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE SUPPRESSION HEARING SUPPORTS A CONCLUSION THAT HANEY WAS IN CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE EVIDENCE SEIZED The Sixth Circuit defined “constructive possession” as the situation where “when a person does not have actual possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others.” U.S. v. Bailey, 553 F.3d 940, 944 (6th Cir.2009) (quoting U.S. v.…