Com. v. Harding, J.
Com. v. Harding, J. No. 1373 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 2, 2017Background
- On Sept. 23, 2013, state troopers executed arrest warrants at an upstairs Hanover apartment; Trooper O’Shea and Officer Kile entered wearing marked tactical vests.
- Appellant Joshua Harding was present, wore a dark blue jacket which he removed and left on a chair; Holly Urban identified the jacket as Harding’s.
- Officers or crime-scene personnel recovered a jacket containing packaged heroin (multiple glassine bags totaling ~3.84 g) and a wallet with items linked to Harding; expert testimony opined the packaging/quantity showed intent to distribute.
- During the entry/attempted handcuffing, Harding struck Trooper O’Shea, causing lacerations and a broken finger; a physical altercation followed and Harding was eventually handcuffed and removed.
- Harding was tried, convicted of possession with intent to deliver, aggravated assault (against an officer), escape, and simple assault, and sentenced to 4–8 years. Post-trial he sought suppression (denied as untimely) and appealed; counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — possession with intent to deliver | Commonwealth: constructive possession proved by jacket identification, drugs found in jacket, wallet and packaging, expert distribution testimony | Harding: drugs were in Urban’s residence; no drugs on his person; no physical tie between him and jacket beyond ID testimony | Court: Evidence sufficient — constructive possession and intent to deliver proven beyond reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency — aggravated assault / simple assault | Commonwealth: testimony showed Harding struck on-duty Trooper (vested), causing injury; meets statutory elements | Harding: (challenged weight/sufficiency generally) | Court: Evidence sufficient to support aggravated assault (officer injury) and simple assault convictions |
| Sufficiency — escape | Commonwealth: official detention began when officers ordered Harding to put hands behind his back; his resistance/standing and attack constituted removal from detention | Harding: argued he did not have drugs on person and contested characterization of his conduct as "removing" himself from detention | Held: Court expressed uncertainty whether conduct met statutory "removal" element; issue not frivolous — remanded for advocate’s brief (counsel’s Anders withdrawal denied) |
| Suppression motion (illegal arrest / Rule 207) | Harding: arrest was illegal; seizure evidence is fruit of poisonous tree; suppression warranted | Commonwealth/Trial court: motion to suppress was filed untimely and denied on that basis; no ruling on merits and Harding did not properly challenge timeliness ruling on appeal | Held: No relief — trial court denied suppression as untimely; appellant did not show error in that ruling, so claim lacks merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lynch, 72 A.3d 706 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sufficiency review standard)
- Commonwealth v. Markman, 916 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 956 A.2d 1024 (Pa. Super. 2008) (elements for possession with intent to deliver)
- Commonwealth v. Kirkland, 831 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. 2003) (constructive possession principles)
- Commonwealth v. Parker, 847 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2004) ("conscious dominion"/constructive possession analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 908 A.2d 924 (Pa. Super. 2006) (fact-finder may resolve doubts; sufficiency standards)
- Commonwealth v. Klein, 795 A.2d 424 (Pa. Super. 2002) (definition of simple assault / bodily injury)
- Commonwealth v. Stewart, 648 A.2d 797 (Pa. Super. 1994) (official detention for escape analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (ineffective-assistance claims generally deferred to collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Anders withdrawal standards)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (required contents of an Anders brief)