247 A.3d 256
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- Aug. 14–15, 2018: Arrington (in Allegheny County) sold heroin laced with fentanyl; the buyer (Decedent) later died in Clarion County from a fentanyl overdose. 21 stamp bags were found on Decedent.
- After the death, the buyers associate McDermid became a police confidential informant and conducted two controlled buys from Arrington in Pittsburgh at Detective Pecks direction.
- Arrington was arrested and tried in Clarion County; jury convicted him of involuntary manslaughter, conspiracy to commit involuntary manslaughter, DDRD, and other drug crimes; aggregate sentence 11.5 to 23 years.
- Pretrial, Arrington moved to transfer venue to Allegheny County (where sales occurred); the court denied the motion, finding venue proper in Clarion (where death occurred) and more convenient given witness locations.
- During trial a juror (Juror No. 4) had a brief conversation with a Commonwealth officer; Arrington sought removal; the court questioned the juror and denied removal; Arrington appealed the venue, juror, and cognizability of conspiracy-to-commit-involuntary-manslaughter claims.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Arrington's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conspiracy to commit involuntary manslaughter is cognizable | Conspiracy is to the underlying intentional/reckless conduct (drug sale); conspirators are liable for foreseeable consequences, so crime is cognizable | Conspiracy requires specific intent; involuntary manslaughter is an unintended killing, so one cannot intend an unintentional death | Affirmed: Cognizable. Conspiracy to commit involuntary manslaughter is valid when conspirators intentionally undertake the reckless act that foreseeably causes death. |
| Whether venue should be transferred to Allegheny County | Venue proper in Clarion too because death (an element/result) occurred there; Clarion is more convenient given witnesses and investigation | Venue should be Allegheny because the sales and controlled buys occurred there | Affirmed: Venue proper in both counties; trial court did not abuse discretion in keeping trial in Clarion after balancing convenience. |
| Whether juror should have been removed for ex parte contact with a Commonwealth witness | Contact was brief, innocuous, officer had limited role, and juror affirmed impartiality; no prejudice shown | The contact risked unconscious bias (invoking Mosley); juror should be disqualified as a matter of law | Affirmed: No abuse of discretion. Court questioned juror, found impartiality, contact was casual and not shown to be prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 80 A.3d 1186 (Pa. 2013) (conspiracy targets intent to engage in underlying conduct; conspirators are bound to foreseeable consequences of that conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 227 A.3d 11 (Pa. Super. 2020) (conspiracy to commit DDRD cognizable where defendants conspired to deliver drugs and death was a natural consequence)
- Commonwealth v. Mosley, 637 A.2d 246 (Pa. 1993) (trial court must question juror after ex parte contact by a key witness; cannot presume harmlessness without inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Graham, 196 A.3d 661 (Pa. Super. 2018) (venue may be proper where either an element or required result occurs; trial court should balance convenience when multiple venues are proper)