Com. v. Friedland, E.
133 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Jan 12, 2017Background
- Plainclothes narcotics surveillance observed Edward Friedland conduct multiple hand-to-hand exchanges on May 13, 2010: he retrieved blue Ziploc packets from a cinder-block wall and a porch rug and sold them to three buyers; recovered packets tested positive for crack cocaine.
- Officers arrested the three purchasers; officers later arrested Friedland and recovered cash on his person; overall drug quantities recovered exceeded guideline thresholds.
- Friedland was tried by jury and convicted of possession with intent to deliver (PWID); previously he was serving a life sentence for second-degree murder and robbery.
- At sentencing the court imposed 4 to 8 years’ incarceration plus 2 years’ probation—above the applicable guideline range—and ordered the sentence to run consecutively to his prior sentence.
- Friedland raised: (1) discretionary-sentencing challenges (excessiveness, failure to consider mitigation/rehabilitation, lack of contemporaneous reasons, consecutive sentencing); (2) appellate challenge to two Commonwealth motions in limine excluding certain cross-examination of Officers Banning and Bartle about unrelated misconduct/misused photograph.
- The Superior Court affirmed: it found Friedland raised substantial questions for review but concluded the trial court considered guidelines, mitigation, and reasons for the upward deviation and permissibly limited cross-examination as irrelevant or cumulative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Friedland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discretionary aspects of sentence (upward departure & consecutive sentence) | Sentencing court considered guidelines, PSI, mental-health report, public protection, and rehabilitation needs; deviation and consecutive sentence were within discretion | Sentence was excessive (more than 100% over guideline), court failed to consider mitigation/rehabilitation, didn’t give contemporaneous reasons, and improperly ran sentence consecutively to non-violent instant offense | Affirmed — court reviewed PSI/reports, stated reasons on record for departure, considered rehabilitation/public safety, and permissibly ordered consecutive sentence |
| Motion in limine precluding cross-exam of Officer Banning about prior fraudulent investigations | Banning’s role was limited to backup that night; alleged prior misconduct by others was irrelevant and beyond scope | Cross-examination about Banning’s participation in fraudulent investigations would show bias/unreliability of police evidence | Affirmed — trial court properly limited questioning to relevant events of arrest day; prior misconduct was irrelevant to Banning’s minimal role |
| Motion in limine precluding questioning Officer Bartle about communications regarding prior misuse of a photograph (which had caused mistrial) | Photograph could be authenticated but communications about its prior misuse were irrelevant/prejudicial | Excluding questioning about the Commonwealth’s prior misuse of a photograph denied Friedland a fair trial and ability to impeach witness credibility | Affirmed — photograph admissible for authentication, but probing communications about its prior misuse was unnecessary and not prejudicial to defendant’s rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (procedural prerequisites for discretionary sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2013) (elements for appellate review of discretionary aspects of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (when failure to consider mitigating factors raises a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (consecutive sentences plus lack of consideration for rehabilitation can present substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Rodda, 723 A.2d 212 (Pa. Super. 1999) (contemporaneous statement requirement for deviations raises substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 42 A.3d 1017 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review for admissibility of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Reese, 31 A.3d 708 (Pa. Super. 2011) (relevance/probative value and use of motions in limine)