Com. v. Bell, M.
2722 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Police surveillance in Sept–Oct 2013 of the 1800–1900 blocks of E. Thayer St., Philadelphia, observed appellant Marquise Bell on multiple occasions in transactions involving small vials of crack cocaine with purple lids.
- Confidential informants (CIs) conducted buys on Sept. 21 and Oct. 4, 2013; Officer McCook observed the CIs hand money to a seller who went inside a nearby dwelling and returned with vials later turned over to police.
- A search warrant for 1856 and 1928 E. Thayer was executed Oct. 9, 2013; Bell was arrested near the residences (no contraband on his person), and 149 similarly capped vials were found in a vehicle outside 1928.
- Bell sought disclosure of the two CIs from Sept. 21 and Oct. 4, asserting a mistaken-identity defense; the trial court denied the motion.
- Bell was convicted at a bench trial of PWID, conspiracy to PWID, and possession; he appealed solely arguing the court abused its discretion in denying CI disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying motion to disclose identities of two confidential informants | Bell: CI identities are material and reasonably requested because they are eyewitnesses who could corroborate his mistaken-identity defense | Commonwealth: Bell only speculates CI testimony; officer observed Bell multiple times and evidence corroborates sold items came from the same source, so disclosure not warranted | Court affirmed: Bell failed to meet initial threshold of materiality/reasonableness; balancing (Roviaro) also favored non-disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (framework for balancing informant privilege against defendant's need for disclosure)
- Commonwealth v. Payne, 656 A.2d 77 (Pa. 1994) (mistaken-identity defense can justify disclosure when CI is sole eyewitness and long delay raises misidentification concerns)
- Commonwealth v. Watson, 69 A.3d 605 (Pa. Super. 2013) (defendant failed to show CI disclosure was material where officer observed defendant and arrest undermined misidentification claim)
- Commonwealth v. Bing, 713 A.2d 56 (Pa. 1998) (numerous observations of defendant reduce need to disclose informant identity)
- Commonwealth v. Herron, 380 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 1977) (defendant must offer factual basis suggesting informant's identity might be relevant/helpful)
- Commonwealth v. Roebuck, 681 A.2d 1279 (Pa. 1996) (recognizes qualified informant privilege to protect flow of law-enforcement information)