Com. v. Hasson, P.
Com. v. Hasson, P. No. 1139 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- Pamela Hasson was convicted by a jury of PWID and possession after witnesses (three police detectives) observed her sell eight red-horse–stamped stamp bags to a confidential informant (CI) in a Family Dollar parking lot. The bags tested positive for heroin.
- Detectives Martin, Miller, and Jaskiewicz each testified they saw Hasson conduct the hand-to-hand transaction and then walk toward her nearby residence on Sammy Angott Way; Detective Martin was in the CI’s car and testified he remained within four feet of the transaction.
- The CI did not testify at trial; the Commonwealth proceeded without calling the CI or disclosing the CI’s identity at the time of trial, and Hasson did not move to compel disclosure or object at trial.
- A jury convicted Hasson on March 15, 2016; on June 30, 2016 the court sentenced her to 12–24 months’ incarceration on the PWID count (no further penalty for possession). She did not file post-sentence motions.
- On appeal Hasson argued the evidence was insufficient because the Commonwealth relied solely on allegedly biased police testimony and failed to present the CI; the Commonwealth argued the police testimony was sufficient.
- The Superior Court affirmed, concluding Hasson waived a weight-of-the-evidence challenge by not preserving it and waived any objection to the CI’s absence by failing to raise it at trial or in post-trial motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / credibility of witnesses | Hasson: conviction rests only on police testimony; officers are biased and CI’s testimony was necessary, so evidence insufficient | Commonwealth: police eyewitness testimony was adequate to prove sale; no requirement to present CI | Court: Claim framed as weight/credibility challenge but was not preserved; insufficiency claim based on absence of CI also waived for failure to timely object; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Carter, 233 A.2d 284 (Pa. 1967) (court expressed caution about convicting solely on police testimony when a disinterested witness is available)
- Commonwealth v. Vernon, 471 A.2d 897 (Pa. Super. 1984) (disclosure of a confidential informant is generally preserved only if timely raised at trial and in post-trial motion)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate review of weight-of-the-evidence claims requires preservation in the trial court)