Com. v. Garnett, R.
Com. v. Garnett, R. No. 393 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Mar 27, 2017Background
- Undercover Officer Marc Barag posed as a buyer and texted a number linked to 721 Caldwell St.; he recognized Appellant Roy Garnett by voice and observed Garnett moving between 712 (his residence) and 721 (target) Caldwell during negotiations for heroin.
- Garnett agreed to sell eight bags of heroin for $60 (after negotiating), then left with Marcus Dennis in a vehicle; both later entered 721 Caldwell and fled when police executed a warrant.
- Inside 721 Caldwell police found an open safe with unused wax packaging sleeves, stamps and inkpads (including a red smiley-face stamp), a bowl and tile with heroin residue; no indicia of personal use.
- Canine unit tracked Dennis to a nearby abandoned house basement where officers found eight sealed bags of heroin stamped with the same red smiley face; Dennis’s car contained court paperwork belonging to Garnett.
- Trial testimony included the investigating officers and an expert in illegal drugs (Officer Donohue); defense presented no evidence. A jury convicted Garnett of PWID, possession, possession of paraphernalia, and two counts of criminal conspiracy. Sentence was 72–144 months plus probation; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Garnett's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether trial court erred by not qualifying Officer Donohue as an expert on narcotics "weight" | Court already qualified Donohue as expert in illegal drugs/distribution; Commonwealth implied weight expertise unnecessary and sidebar off-record | Donohue should have been qualified as an expert on weight to assist the trier of fact and for compulsory process | Waived: appellant failed to preserve record of sidebar/offer of proof; issues deemed waived (court reviewed merits to extent possible) |
| 2. Denial of compulsory process claim tied to expert qualification | No record shows exclusion of evidence or denial of compulsory process | Exclusion of expert testimony on weight deprived Garnett of compulsory process | Waived for lack of record; appellant did not pursue Rule 1923 statement to supplement transcript |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence for PWID, possession, and possession of paraphernalia | Evidence (calls/texts, movement between houses, packaging materials, stamped bags, no indicia of personal use, expert opinion) supports constructive possession and intent to deliver | Evidence insufficient: no drugs on Garnett’s person; challenged reliance on expert | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence (communications, presence, packaging, matching stamp, materials, flight, association with Dennis) supported constructive possession and intent to deliver beyond a reasonable doubt |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence for criminal conspiracy with Marcus Dennis | Joint communications, joint travel to obtain drugs, joint entry/flight, overt acts (distribution-related conduct) show agreement, shared intent, overt act | No specific agreement shown; mere presence insufficient | Affirmed: association + communications + joint conduct created a "web of evidence" sufficient for conspiracy |
| 5. Weight of the evidence (verdict shocks conscience) | Verdict supported by credible testimony and physical evidence; trial court declined new-trial motion | Verdict against weight; testimony not credible (alleged officer motive) | Not preserved on appeal (post-sentence motion challenged only sentencing); alternatively, no relief — trial court found no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 963 A.2d 495 (Pa. Super. 2008) (appellant must identify where issues were preserved in record on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Watson, 945 A.2d 174 (Pa. Super. 2008) (admission of expert testimony rests within trial court discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Reed, 971 A.2d 1216 (Pa. 2009) (appellant must ensure the certified record is complete for appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Bricker, 882 A.2d 1008 (Pa. Super. 2005) (constructive possession requires conscious dominion and may be established by totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Bostick, 958 A.2d 543 (Pa. Super. 2008) (PWID requires proof of possession plus intent to deliver; intent may be inferred from circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Little, 879 A.2d 293 (Pa. Super. 2005) (factors for determining drug paraphernalia include proximity to drugs and residue; circumstantial evidence can suffice)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2005) (circumstantial evidence may establish conspiracy; look for association, knowledge, presence, participation)
- Commonwealth v. Macolino, 469 A.2d 132 (Pa. 1983) (presence of drugs and paraphernalia in shared premises can establish constructive possession)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 73 A.3d 1269 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellate review of weight claim is limited; trial court's denial of new trial reviewed for palpable abuse of discretion)