Com. v. Aguilar, S.
2025 Pa. Super. 118
Pa. Super. Ct.2025Background:
- Sergio Mauricio Zambrano Aguilar was charged after online communications with an adult "vigilante" (Musa Harris, LC Predator Catchers) posing as a 15-year-old boy, during which Aguilar agreed to meet for sexual acts and sent graphic messages.
- The police were called by the vigilante after Aguilar provided his address and arrived to meet; Aguilar was interviewed by police and admitted the sexual intent.
- Aguilar was charged with Attempted Corruption of Minors (felony and misdemeanor) and Criminal Use of a Communication Facility, but not with Unlawful Contact with Minors.
- Aguilar filed a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence, arguing that contact with a civilian posing as a child was insufficient, relying on the statutory requirement in Unlawful Contact with Minors.
- The trial court granted suppression, construed the motion as a motion to quash, and quashed the information, reasoning factual impossibility and lack of communication with an actual minor or officer rendered the charges defective.
- The Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court reversed the trial court, reinstated charges, and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Aguilar's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression of evidence was appropriate | No constitutional rights were violated; vigilante provided evidence, not law enforcement | The evidence stems from a non-police sting, thus should be suppressed | Suppression was inappropriate; no privacy right violated |
| Whether motion to suppress could be relabeled as a motion to quash | Only suppression properly before court; quashing not properly sought | Relabeling permitted; prosecution should be quashed for impossibility | Error to sua sponte quash information not properly raised |
| Whether factual impossibility is a defense to attempt charges | No—Pennsylvania law does not recognize factual impossibility as a defense to criminal attempt | Factual impossibility precludes liability; no minor was involved | Factual impossibility not a defense under PA law |
| Whether statutes charged require involvement of a real minor or law enforcement | Statutes (Corruption of Minors, Communication Facility) have no such requirement | They require contact with a real minor or LEO due to amendment of related statute | Statutory language unambiguous—no such requirement for charges at issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Proetto, 771 A.2d 823 (Pa. Super. 2001) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in online communications once received)
- Commonwealth v. Henley, 459 A.2d 365 (Pa. Super. 1983) (factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 557 A.2d 1106 (Pa. Super. 1989) (motions to quash cannot be used as guilt determinations)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 860 A.2d 132 (Pa. Super. 2004) (motion to quash reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Marti, 779 A.2d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2011) (prima facie case standards for preliminary criminal proceedings)