History
  • No items yet
midpage
Com. v. Barnett, M.
345 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 4, 2016
Read the full case

Background

  • On May 21-22, 2014 Erie police, acting on a long‑used confidential informant's tip about a burgundy Ford van (plate JML4554) linked to recent and anticipated shootings, located and surveilled the van.
  • Officers observed a black male enter and later drive the van; after reports of shots fired elsewhere the van returned and fled when officers activated lights/siren; a silver object was tossed from the driver’s window and the van crashed into house steps.
  • Officers detained and arrested Marquise Barnett after he exited the van; two firearms were recovered (one tossed from the van, one that fell from Barnett), one with an obliterated serial number and one later reported stolen.
  • Barnett filed suppression and Rule 600 (speedy‑trial) motions; initial suppression denial (Nov. 14, 2014) was followed by a nolle prosequi and refiling when forensic testing connected the guns to a separate shooting. A Rule 600 dismissal motion was denied (Nov. 13, 2015).
  • At a November 2015 jury trial Barnett was convicted of persons not to possess a firearm and firearms not to be carried without a license; other charges tied to the house shooting were dismissed; sentence imposed in Jan. 2016.

Issues

Issue Commonwealth's Argument Barnett's Argument Held
Legality of traffic stop / investigatory detention CI was long‑reliable; officers corroborated specific predictive details (van, plate, location, suspect description, shots fired) establishing reasonable suspicion Stop rested solely on unverified informant tip; insufficient to justify seizure Denied suppression: totality of circumstances and CI corroboration gave reasonable suspicion to stop
Rule 600 speedy‑trial after nolle/pros and refiling Forensic report received day of trial was beyond Commonwealth's control; Commonwealth exercised due diligence; refiling not to circumvent Rule 600 Nolle pros and refiling delayed prosecution and violated Rule 600 Denied dismissal: withdrawal/refiling justified by factors beyond control and due diligence satisfied; no circumvention
Jury instruction to disregard evidence of Woodlawn Ave. shooting (charges later dismissed) N/A (Commonwealth had charges dismissed at close of its case) Trial court should have given a cautionary instruction directing jury to ignore evidence tied to dismissed charges Waived on appeal: Barnett failed to contemporaneously object at trial, so issue not preserved
Sufficiency at preliminary/prima facie stage for multiple charges (e.g., firearms, fleeing) Circumstantial evidence showed Barnett was sole occupant/driver, tossed gun from vehicle, had object fall from person, and record prohibited firearm possession—sufficient prima facie case Insufficient proof linking Barnett to driving, possession, or deliberate conduct required for charges Court found prima facie evidence sufficient to proceed to trial on those counts

Key Cases Cited

  • Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2010) (informant tips can justify investigative stops when verified)
  • Commonwealth v. Luv, 735 A.2d 87 (Pa. 1999) (corroboration of an informant’s tip can establish probable cause)
  • Commonwealth v. Griffin, 954 A.2d 684 (Pa. Super. 2008) (predictive or specific corroboration increases informant reliability)
  • Commonwealth v. Meadius, 870 A.2d 802 (Pa. 2005) (run date for Rule 600 computed from refiling when withdrawal/refiling caused by factors beyond Commonwealth’s control and due diligence shown)
  • Commonwealth v. Schaffer, 712 A.2d 749 (Pa. 1998) (dismissal is extreme sanction and reserved for egregious prosecutorial misconduct)
  • Commonwealth v. Goldman, 70 A.3d 874 (Pa. 2013) (standards governing when dismissal for Rule 600 violations is appropriate)
  • Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282 (Pa. 2010) (contemporaneous trial objection required to preserve claimed jury‑instruction errors)
  • Commonwealth v. Santos, 876 A.2d 360 (Pa. 2005) (prima facie standard at preliminary hearing requires evidence of material elements to proceed)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Com. v. Barnett, M.
Court Name: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Nov 4, 2016
Docket Number: 345 WDA 2016
Court Abbreviation: Pa. Super. Ct.