Com. v. Espenlaub, S.
304 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- In Dec 2012 two men in SWAT gear impersonated drug agents, forced entry into Damien Morris’s home, displayed a warrant, threatened him with guns, seized five pounds of marijuana and cash, and handcuffed him.
- Morris later received an extortion letter demanding $20,000 and 20 pounds of drugs; he contacted counsel and arranged a meeting where Espenlaub arrived and was arrested.
- Police executed warrants at Espenlaub’s residence and two vehicles, recovering firearms, police gear (including a knit hat marked "SWAT"), drugs, cash, and other items.
- Espenlaub was convicted by a jury of robbery, burglary, criminal trespass, theft by deception, impersonating a police officer, and criminal conspiracy; separate firearms charges (person not to possess a firearm) were tried and resulted in additional convictions.
- Trial court imposed aggregate sentence of 9 to 18 years (to run consecutive to firearms sentence for total 16.5 to 38 years); Espenlaub appealed arguing (1) improper admission of firearm photographs and (2) excessive consecutive sentence.
- Court of Common Pleas admitted slide show photos of firearms after excluding non-law-enforcement-type guns; appellate court affirmed admission and held sentencing claim waived for failure to include in Rule 1925(b) statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of photographs of firearms found at defendant’s home | Commonwealth: photos are relevant to show defendant possessed weapons commonly used by law enforcement and support impersonation/robbery theory | Espenlaub: photos irrelevant because not shown to be the weapons used in the robbery and unfairly prejudicial | Affirmed — photos admissible; they tend to prove possession of weapons similar to those used and any uncertainty affects weight, not admissibility |
| Consecutive sentences excessive | Commonwealth: trial court considered PSI and appropriate factors in sentencing | Espenlaub: court overemphasized seriousness and prior record, failed to consider mitigation, resulting sentence unduly harsh | Not reached on merits — claim waived for failure to raise in Rule 1925(b) statement; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Talbert v. Commonwealth, 129 A.3d 536 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for admissibility of evidence)
- Tyson v. Commonwealth, 119 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2015) (relevance is threshold for admissibility)
- Baez v. Commonwealth, 720 A.2d 711 (Pa. 1998) (test for whether photographs are inflammatory and whether probative value outweighs prejudice)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 58 A.3d 769 (Pa. Super. 2012) (weapons evidence admissible if defendant had weapon suitable to commit crime)
- Owens v. Commonwealth, 929 A.2d 1187 (Pa. Super. 2007) (uncertainty whether weapon was used goes to weight, not admissibility)
- Kouma v. Commonwealth, 53 A.3d 760 (Pa. Super. 2012) (definition and scope of unfair prejudice under Rule 403)
- Lord v. Commonwealth, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement are waived)
- Devers v. Commonwealth, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (presumption that sentencing court considered PSI and relevant factors)