When Being Around a Gun Isn’t a Crime: The Limits of Constructive Possession in Louisiana

State v. Gerald Manchip White, 2024-K-01588 (La. Dec. 11, 2025)

Holding: The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed all convictions against a felon accused of possessing firearms found in a family home. The State failed to prove he exercised dominion and control over the guns or had the intent to possess them. Mere presence, awareness, or living in a home where others lawfully keep guns is not enough for a criminal conviction.

Importance: Officers frequently encounter multi-occupant homes where firearms are lawfully owned by people other than the parolee or felon. This case sets a clear boundary between parole violations and criminal firearm possession—and what evidence is required to prove constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

Limits: The ruling does not prevent parole officers from taking enforcement action for parole violations. It only restricts criminal convictions where evidence of dominion, control, and intent is lacking.

Facts

Gerald Manchip White, a convicted felon, lived in a modest Bossier Parish home with his wife, adult children, and grandmother. Two days before a parole compliance check, Officer Ayleen Cook visited the house looking for someone else. During the visit, White voluntarily disclosed that weeks earlier, a home intruder had shot and robbed his son, Jordan, using Jordan’s own gun. When asked whether “the gun” was still in the home, White said yes. Officer Cook advised him that no firearms could remain in the residence because of his felon status.

Two days later, parole officers returned for a full residence check. They found three firearms:

1. A .22 revolver in a dresser drawer in the master bedroom.

2. A 9mm handgun under a mattress in the daughter’s room.

3. A 9mm handgun inside cushions of the living-room couch where Jordan slept.

Family members immediately testified that each gun belonged to someone other than White:

• The wife owned the revolver and kept it in her dresser drawer with her clothes.

• The daughter’s boyfriend had brought the 9mm into the house only hours earlier.

• Jordan kept his 9mm for protection after being shot during a recent home invasion.

No evidence showed White touched, used, moved, or accessed any of the guns. The jury acquitted White on the daughter’s-room gun, convicted him of attempted possession for the bedroom gun, and possession for the couch gun. He received concurrent sentences of 7 and 14 years. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issues

1. Was the evidence legally sufficient to prove White had constructive possession of the firearms found in his home?

2. Did the State prove he had the intent—general or specific—to possess the guns?

Holding

The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed all convictions and sentences, holding that the evidence did not prove constructive possession or criminal intent for either firearm.

Reasoning

1. Sufficiency Review Requires Evidence, Not Speculation

The Court began with Jackson v. Virginia, emphasizing that while juries may draw reasonable inferences, the reviewing court cannot uphold convictions based on speculation—especially where circumstantial evidence does not exclude reasonable innocent explanations.

2. Constructive Possession Requires Dominion, Control, and Knowledge

Constructive possession requires more than proximity. The firearm must be under the defendant’s dominion and control, and he must have guilty knowledge of it.

The State conceded White lacked actual possession. Thus, only constructive possession was at issue.

3. The Bedroom Gun Was in the Wife’s Exclusive Space

Officers found the revolver in a drawer containing:

• Women’s intimate apparel

• Baby socks

• A gaming device belonging to the wife

Critically, photographs disproved the parole officer’s claim that White’s paperwork was in the same dresser. It was in a completely different chest of drawers.

No evidence showed White accessed that drawer, touched the gun, or even knew it was there. The Court held this failed to exclude the reasonable hypothesis that the wife owned and controlled the firearm—just as in comparable Louisiana jurisprudence.

4. The Couch Gun Belonged to the Son, Who Slept on That Couch

Jordan testified he kept the gun in his truck or the couch where he slept, especially after the violent home invasion. Officers never saw White near the couch before or during the search.

The State introduced zero evidence showing White exercised control over that weapon. Knowledge that “a gun” might still be in the house did not prove he knew:

• which gun,

• where it was, or

• that he intended to possess it.

5. Awareness Alone Is Not Criminal Intent

Two days before the search, White acknowledged a gun was still in the house. But the Court stressed:

• Awareness ≠ intent

• Awareness ≠ dominion and control

• Awareness ≠ possession

Louisiana’s own jurisprudence (e.g., Fisher, Scott, Johnson) consistently rejects convictions based on mere knowledge or proximity. Here, nothing showed White wanted, needed, or attempted to possess the firearm—nor that he exercised control over where the gun was kept.

6. Parole Violations Are Not the Same as Criminal Convictions

Justice Cole’s concurrence underscored that although White likely violated parole terms, parole revocation requires a lesser burden of proof than a criminal conviction.

The majority echoed this: criminal convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt—not assumptions arising from shared living conditions.

7. The Court Refused to Criminalize Living With Armed Family

Chief Justice Weimer—a notable concurrence—warned that upholding these convictions would create an unconstitutional burden on the gun rights of innocent family members.

The law does not force families to choose between:

• exercising their constitutional right to own firearms, and

• living with a relative on parole.

This case illustrates that the presence of guns in a shared home does not automatically create criminal liability for every resident.

Street Takeaways for Officers

• Mere presence or proximity to firearms is not enough to charge felon-in-possession. Officers must look for evidence of dominion, control, and intent.

• Constructive possession must be proven, not presumed. Guns kept in another person’s private drawer, purse, bag, or sleeping area generally remain under that person’s control unless evidence shows otherwise.

• Awareness ≠ possession. A felon simply knowing a gun exists somewhere in the home does not meet the burden for a criminal conviction.

• Parole violations and criminal liability are different. Evidence sufficient for a parole revocation may be insufficient for a criminal case.

• Look for behavioral indicators showing the suspect accessed, moved, used, or controlled the firearm.

• Document the layout and objects carefully. In this case, photos disproved an officer’s assumption about shared dresser space—undermining the State’s theory.

• Multi-occupant households require deeper interviews. Who owns what? Who sleeps where? Who controls specific spaces? These details matter.

Disclaimer

This blog post is for law enforcement training and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Officers should consult departmental legal advisors and prosecutors for case-specific guidance.