Com. v. Crespo, D.
Com. v. Crespo, D. No. 1340 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 17, 2017Background
- On July 8, 2015, PSP troopers conducting proactive parcel checks at a UPS facility seized a package addressed to David Crespo; K-9 alerted and warrant search revealed 35.77 lbs of marijuana wax vacuum-sealed and concealed.
- Package was sent from California, heavily taped and weighed ~54 lbs; contents wrapped with scented wipes and spray foam insulation.
- Troopers performed a controlled delivery to Crespo’s apartment; Crespo accepted the package, directed placement, then used his cellphone and exited the building shortly after the delivery.
- Search of Crespo’s home yielded no drug paraphernalia or indicia of use/dealing; his phone contained contacts under ‘street names’ and an encryption app.
- Trooper Reed (expert) testified that circumstantial factors (addressed to Crespo, he expected a delivery, manner of concealment, quantity/value, encrypted phone, lack of personal use items) supported a finding of constructive possession with intent to deliver.
- Crespo was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to deliver marijuana wax and sentenced to 2–6 years; post-sentence motion was denied and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Did evidence prove Crespo knowingly possessed the wax? | Commonwealth: circumstantial evidence (addressed to Crespo, expected delivery, controlled delivery behavior, quantity/value, phone indicia) supports knowledge and constructive possession. | Crespo: No proof he knew contents; he never handled package; innocent explanations exist for behavior. | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to infer knowledge and constructive possession from totality of circumstances. |
| Weight of the evidence: Was verdict against weight due to overreliance on expert? | Commonwealth: Trooper Reed’s expert synthesis of converging facts was credible; jury entitled to credit it. | Crespo: Jury placed undue weight on Trooper Reed; facts individually innocent. | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion denying new trial; credibility findings stand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency claims; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Commonwealth v. Mudrick, 507 A.2d 1212 (Pa. 1986) (constructive possession is a pragmatic legal fiction)
- Commonwealth v. Valette, 613 A.2d 548 (Pa. 1992) (constructive possession requires conscious dominion; may be found with joint control)
- Commonwealth v. Macolino, 469 A.2d 132 (Pa. 1983) (intent to maintain conscious dominion may be inferred from totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 26 A.3d 1078 (Pa. 2011) (discusses standards for constructive possession and circumstantial proof)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (standard of appellate review for weight-of-the-evidence claims; deference to trial court's discretion)