Com. v. Billups, C.
Com. v. Billups, C. No. 242 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 23, 2017Background
- Victim Yvette Briggs reported that on Aug. 14, 2014 a man reached into her parked vehicle and stole her pocketbook; she stated she looked at the perpetrator for 3–4 seconds and later saw one of her credit cards used nearby.
- At 3:45 a.m. Aug. 15, 2014 police encountered three men near the area and a fourth man (Mr. Briggs); police patted down the three men and detained them but did not handcuff them.
- Mr. Briggs called his wife to bring her to the scene; Lieutenant Barker testified he told Mr. Briggs the wife would be needed to identify a suspect; the record does not contain the substance of the husband’s call to his wife.
- Mrs. Briggs arrived and identified Appellee Carey Billups in the group; she testified she was 100% sure, noted facial features and beard, and said Appellee wore different shirt but same shoes/pants (some inconsistencies about cargo pants vs. sweatpants and beard were in the record).
- Appellee was convicted in Municipal Court; for the de novo trial in Common Pleas he moved to suppress Mrs. Briggs’ identification on the day of trial; the trial court granted suppression, finding Mrs. Briggs’ identification was tainted by the husband’s call and her expectation that the police had the suspect.
- The Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court found the trial court made a key factual finding (about what Mr. Briggs told his wife) unsupported by the record, reversed the suppression order, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Billups' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural timeliness of suppression motion | Motion waived/untimely because not raised in Municipal Court and outside Rule 579 time limits | Trial court permitted motion; defendant entitled to litigate suppression at de novo trial | Superior Court: Commonwealth failed to preserve objection due to incomplete record on whether trial court excused timeliness; issue not resolved on merits |
| Admissibility of on‑the‑scene identification | Identification reliable; no record support that wife was told police already had the suspect | Identification tainted because husband allegedly told wife police had the suspect, creating an expectation and impermissible suggestiveness | Superior Court: Trial court’s suppression rested on an unsupported factual finding about husband’s statement; that finding not in record, so suppression reversed and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Harmon, 366 A.2d 895 (Pa. 1976) (defendant cannot relitigate at de novo trial issues raised or which could have been raised in Municipal Court)
- Commonwealth v. Dobson, 405 A.2d 910 (Pa. 1979) (same principle regarding relitigation at de novo trial)
- Commonwealth v. Bongiorno, 905 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellant bears responsibility to ensure record is complete for appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Korn, 139 A.3d 249 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for suppression orders: factual findings binding if supported; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 146 A.3d 1271 (Pa. Super. 2016) (reiterating that suppression issues raised or that could have been raised in Municipal Court generally may not be relitigated at de novo trial)