Com. v. Cooper, W.
303 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- On April 2, 2015 John Long consigned a distinctive Speed Buggy lunchbox (orange “smiley face” stickers) to Violet’s Auction House for sale; the lunchbox was displayed in the back gallery and on AuctionZip.
- The lunchbox went missing during the auction day; Cooper (an auction employee with key/access) told Long it had been sold.
- Two days later Long saw the same lunchbox listed on a Blair County yard-sale website, arranged to buy it, and Cooper personally handed the lunchbox to Long at the meeting.
- Trooper Jeffrey Hileman interviewed Cooper twice; the second interview was recorded but the recording was later erased because the requested preservation window omitted the interview and department MVRs were taped over after 90 days.
- Cooper was charged with theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property; after a bench trial the court convicted him of both offenses (as third-degree misdemeanors) and sentenced him to a $2,000 fine and costs.
- Cooper appealed, arguing (1) insufficiency of the evidence and (2) error in admitting statements from the second interview because the Commonwealth failed to preserve the recording.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of statements from erased recording | Commonwealth: recording was lost despite a good-faith preservation effort; trooper testimony about interview content is admissible under lost-original exception | Cooper: Commonwealth acted in bad faith by failing to preserve the recording; statements should be suppressed | Court held recording was lost without bad faith, sufficient search/preservation efforts shown, so statements admissible |
| Sufficiency of evidence for theft by unlawful taking | Commonwealth: evidence showed Cooper had access, took the unique lunchbox, listed it for sale, and sold it back to the owner | Cooper: he bought the lunchbox as part of a box lot and others could have placed it in the box; disputed ownership/intent | Court found evidence (owner/consignee testimony, unique identifiers, listing and sale by Cooper) sufficient to prove unlawful taking |
| Sufficiency of evidence for receiving stolen property | Commonwealth: Cooper possessed and sold property he knew belonged to another and had no intent to return it | Cooper: challenged provenance and raised alternative account of purchase | Court found possession combined with notice (conversation with owner) and sale supported receiving conviction |
| Weight of the evidence / credibility | Commonwealth: witness testimony was consistent and credible; factual narrative supports conviction | Cooper: proffered conflicting testimony (his and girlfriend’s) creating alternative narrative | Court (as factfinder) found Commonwealth witnesses more credible and declined to grant a new trial; verdict not against weight of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hakala, 900 A.2d 404 (Pa. Super. 2006) (undeveloped appellate arguments are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915 (Pa. 2009) (appellate claim waiver for failure to develop argument)
- Commonwealth v. Cam Ly, 980 A.2d 61 (Pa. 2009) (burden on defendant to prove evidence was withheld/suppressed)
- Hera v. McCormick, 625 A.2d 682 (Pa. 1993) (proponent must show sufficient search when originals are asserted lost)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 83 A.3d 137 (Pa. 2013) (standards for de novo sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (appellate sufficiency review focuses on whether evidence believed by factfinder supports verdict)
- Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d 1025 (Pa. 2007) (standard and deference in weight-of-the-evidence review)