Com. v. Geter, R.
181 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 27, 2017Background
- Geter was tried jointly with co-defendant Kevin Andrews on charges arising from a forged-prescription scheme that obtained and distributed Oxycodone; Commonwealth alleged Andrews led the operation and Geter acted as an assistant/driver and recruiter of "runners."
- Indictment originally charged 37 counts; by trial Geter faced 29 counts across multiple time periods (Feb. 1, 2013–Dec. 31, 2014); jury convicted Geter on nine counts, largely limited to the final time period (Sept. 12, 2014–Dec. 31, 2014).
- Trial lasted seven days; Commonwealth presented >30 witnesses (law enforcement, expert testimony, and multiple runners) who implicated Andrews and some who put Geter at meetings, driving, or receiving pills/money.
- Key testimonial evidence included coconspirator and runner testimony (e.g., Raheem Hall, Floria Coffey) describing Geter’s presence, phone contacts with Andrews, and at least one successful forged-prescription run involving Geter.
- Geter moved to sever from Andrews, objected to admission of certain out-of-court statements, challenged sufficiency of evidence for several convictions, and argued his aggregate sentence (14–28 years) was excessive.
- The Superior Court affirmed: denied severance claim, upheld admission of coconspirator hearsay, found evidence sufficient under conspiratorial liability, and rejected the discretionary-sentencing challenge (trial court had considered PSI and sentencing factors).
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Geter's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to sever joint trial | Evidence against Geter overlapped with Andrews; joinder efficient and proper for conspiracy-related charges | Joint trial prejudiced Geter because most evidence targeted Andrews, producing guilt by association | Denied — no abuse of discretion; offenses and evidence were closely related; defenses not irreconcilably antagonistic |
| Admission of coconspirator out-of-court statement (Hall testifying Andrews said Geter was a driver) | Statement admissible under Pa.R.E. 803(25)(E); conspiracy established by preponderance and statement made in furtherance | Statement inadmissible hearsay / not in furtherance; confrontation concerns; insufficient nexus to conspiracy at time of statement | Admitted — trial court did not abuse discretion; conspiracy and Geter’s participation were proven by Hall’s own testimony and the statement aided training/explanation within the conspiracy |
| Sufficiency of evidence for several convictions (possession with intent to deliver, corrupt organizations, conspiracies, dealing in proceeds, identity theft) | Even if Geter did not personally perform every act, conspiratorial liability permits conviction for co-conspirators’ acts in furtherance of the scheme | Evidence was thin (often a single episode/corroboration) and insufficient to prove elements for the listed offenses during the convicted time period | Affirmed — sufficient circumstantial evidence of conspiracy existed; conspirators are liable for co-conspirators’ acts in furtherance, so jury rationally convicted Geter on those counts |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence (aggregate 14–28 years) | Sentencing court considered PSI, prior criminal history (including repeat felony status), public safety, gravity of offense, and guidelines — sentence within standard range | Sentence excessive given limited role, sparse record, and jury acquittals on earlier time periods; court improperly focused on general drug epidemic | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court followed statutory sentencing procedures, considered mitigating and aggravating factors, and imposed within guidelines |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 985 A.2d 886 (Pa. 2009) (standard of review for severance/joinder decisions)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 925 A.2d 147 (Pa. 2007) (joint trial guidance for conspiracies; antagonistic defenses standard)
- Commonwealth v. O'Neil, 108 A.3d 900 (Pa. Super. 2014) (severance required where co-defendant faced markedly different and highly prejudicial charges)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010 (Pa. Super. 2002) (conspiratorial liability; factors supporting corrupt confederation)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 838 A.2d 663 (Pa. 2003) (requirements for admitting coconspirator statements)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 157 A.3d 508 (Pa. Super. 2017) (sufficiency review standard; view evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Knox, 105 A.3d 1194 (Pa. 2014) (conspiratorial liability as independent basis for conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing decisions)