Com. v. Baker, T.
Com. v. Baker, T. No. 454 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 1, 2017Background
- Troy Baker and two co-defendants were tried jointly for a series of burglaries in PA and MD occurring mid‑2013; Baker was convicted on four burglary and conspiracy counts and sentenced to an aggregate 80–180 months.
- Investigators (Howard County ROPE team and others) collected evidence including surveillance, ATM/DVR/statements, GPS/live cell pings (lawful Maryland court orders), and historical cell‑tower records plotted by an FBI analyst. Defendants were stopped/chased and arrested after the final burglary.
- Three prior incidents (2009 Walkersville, 2010 Montgomery County stop, 2013 Cindy Skylight burglary) and forensic/cell‑data links were offered by the Commonwealth under identity/res gestae/Rule 404(b) theories.
- Baker moved to sever, to suppress evidence gathered/observed by Maryland officers in PA, to exclude historical cell‑tower expert testimony under Frye, to exclude prior‑bad‑acts evidence, and for mistrial based on alleged breaches of pretrial rulings.
- The trial court denied all motions; on appeal the Superior Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and deeming any errors harmless where applicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Baker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder/severance of co‑defendants | Joint trial appropriate because offenses arose from same course of events and a conspiracy; evidence admissible as part of natural development | Joinder prejudiced Baker; prior‑act evidence about co‑defendants would bleed over and jury couldn’t separate evidence | Denied; joinder appropriate, prejudice not shown; co‑conspirators usually tried together |
| Suppression of MD officers’ observations and cell tracking | Observations and Maryland court‑ordered tracking were lawful and provided to PA investigators; ROPE acted within jurisdictional norms and coordinated with PA | MD officers’ tracking/observations in PA violated MPJA and hot‑pursuit limits; evidence obtained in PA without authority must be suppressed | Denied; Baker waived developed statutory argument on appeal and court found observations not a protected expectation (open‑field/golf course) and tracking was court‑authorized in MD; suppression claim waived/lacked development |
| Frye challenge to historical cell‑tower analysis | Cell‑tower/historical CDR analysis is generally accepted; FBI expert testified methodology not novel and helped jury | Methodology to calculate a tower “footprint” and assign location is novel/unreliable and should be excluded under Frye | Denied; trial court found the methodology not novel and admissible under Frye; Superior Court saw no abuse of discretion |
| Admission of prior bad acts (Rule 404(b)) | Prior incidents showed distinctive modus operandi, identity, opportunity, and formed part of the natural development/res gestae | Prior acts were remote, involved co‑defendants (not Baker in all), and risked propensity inference and unfair prejudice | Denied; court admitted them under identity/res gestae/other non‑propensity purposes and held any error harmless given cumulative, strong circumstantial case |
| Mistrial motions for prosecutor/witness breaches of in limine rulings | Any mention was inadvertent and limited; remarks were cumulative of admissible prior‑act evidence and curable | Prosecutor’s “dossiers” remark and detective’s reference to prior investigations violated pretrial orders and warranted mistrial | Denied; remarks were either ambiguous or brief, not so prejudicial as to deprive Baker of fair trial, and any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Dozzo, 991 A.2d 898 (Pa. Super. 2010) (joinder prejudice standard)
- Commonwealth v. Lauro, 819 A.2d 100 (Pa. Super. 2003) (Rule 583 and joinder principles)
- Commonwealth v. Housman, 986 A.2d 822 (Pa. 2009) (preference for joint trials of co‑conspirators)
- Commonwealth v. Rushing, 71 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. 2013) (real‑time cell‑tracking privacy expectations)
- Commonwealth v. McAdoo, 46 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review on suppression appeals)
- Grady v. Frito‑Lay, 839 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 2003) (Frye governs admissibility of novel scientific evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Dengler, 890 A.2d 372 (Pa. 2005) (Rule 702/Frye principles)
- Commonwealth v. Weakley, 972 A.2d 1182 (Pa. Super. 2009) (identity exception to Rule 404(b))
- Commonwealth v. Padilla, 923 A.2d 1189 (Pa. Super. 2007) (prejudice from violation of motion in limine can require mistrial)
- Commonwealth v. Russo, 934 A.2d 1199 (Pa. 2007) (open‑fields doctrine and expectation of privacy)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 83 A.3d 137 (Pa. 2013) (appellate standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Story, 383 A.2d 155 (Pa. 1978) (harmless error standard)