This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals of Virginia.   The trial court found Roger Paul Hodnett guilty of constructive possession of ammunition after having been convicted of a felony in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2(A).1 In the Court of Appeals, Hodnett challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. The Court of Appeals found the evidence sufficient. We agree and affirm.   "On appeal, we review the evidence in the 'light most favorable' to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the trial court." Vasquez v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232, 236 (2016) (citation omitted). "Viewing the record through this evidentiary prism requires us to 'discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom.'" Id (citation omitted).   So viewed, the evidence at trial showed that on July 14, 2016, several officers executed a search warrant at Hodnett's residence. When the officers arrived, Hodnett was at the residence with his wife Michelle, Darrell Robertson, David Hall, and several young children. During the search of the residence, the officers found a loaded .270-caliber rifle in the closet of a bedroom occupied by Robertson. Robertson knew the caliber of the rifle and claimed that he had borrowed the rifle from a friend for hunting and that he did not let Hodnett touch the rifle. Robertson testified that he had his own pickup truck that he used for hunting and in which he usually kept the rifle, but he explained that he brought the rifle into the house after hunting on a rainy day instead of leaving it in the truck.   An investigator also searched a vehicle parked outside of the residence and discovered not only marijuana and cash in the center console between the driver's and passenger's seats but also a box of"12 gauge shotgun turkey loads" in the pouch on the back of the front passenger's seat. lA. at 67; see also id. at 68-71. The side of the 12-gauge shotgun shell box was visible when looking down at the pouch because the pouch protruded approximately 3 inches from the back of the front passenger's seat given the box's size. See R. at 212.3 Earlier on the same day, one of the officers, while on his way to surveil Hodnett's residence, observed Hodnett driving the vehicle with no other passengers. While surveilling Hodnett's residence, the officer also observed Hodnett open a passenger's side door of the vehicle and do "something on the inside" for "a minute or so" before closing the door and walking to the residence.4 J.A. at 61. Hodnett admitted to the officers after the search that the vehicle belonged to him.   Robertson, Hodnett's only defense witness, testified that Hodnett "sometimes" allowed Robertson to use the vehicle "to go out to get a loaf of bread or something" and to go hunting "a couple times," id. at 113-14, but he confirmed that the vehicle was Hodnett's and that Hodnett used it "all the time," id. at 117. When asked whether he had left "any ammunition" in the vehicle, Robertson replied: "Well, I probably, it might have been some. I have used it, you know, a time or two. Probably some of the bullets might have been in there, yeah." Id. at 113. Subsequently, Robertson was asked whether he had ever used "shotgun shells with ... birdshot," and he answered affirmatively and explained that he had a 12-gauge, single-barrel shotgun in addition to the .270-caliber rifle. Id at 114.   Hodnett moved to strike the evidence after the Commonwealth's case-in-chief and at the conclusion of all of the evidence. The trial court denied the motions and found Hodnett "guilty of the possession of the twelve gauge shotgun ammunition," id at 129, without any specific mention of the "bullets" that Robertson said he might have left in Hodnett's veh