Com. v. Ibbetson, W.
2148 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- Appellant William Ibbetson had a prior felony drug conviction (2008) and was delinquent on parole when investigated in 2014.
- Aug. 4, 2014: Officers at 717 Bushkill St. (Appellant’s mother's home) observed men’s clothing, mail in Appellant’s name, a denim/sleeveless motorcycle vest, and a Glock handgun in plain view; no seizure occurred then.
- Sept. 3, 2014: Multi-agency search of 2410 Emerald Lane (homeowner Judith Soldo) was conducted after consent; officers observed the same Glock (serial HWN466), a loaded magazine, a backpack with Appellant’s ID and clothing, and drug paraphernalia (glassine baggies) in plain view.
- After the Emerald Lane search, Trooper Watkins saw Ibbetson on a motorcycle; Ibbetson fled off-road. He was arrested Oct. 28, 2014.
- A jury convicted Ibbetson of persons not to possess firearms (18 Pa.C.S. § 6105) and flight to avoid apprehension; he was sentenced to 4.5–10 years’ incarceration plus 3 years’ probation. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Ibbetson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether mistrial was required after testimony mentioning vest colors and glassine bags | Testimony about clothing and baggies was relevant and not intentionally elicited to show gang/drug activity; curative instruction could address prejudice | References to "colors" (vest) and glassine baggies improperly suggested gang/drug evidence and deprived him of a fair trial | No abuse of discretion; testimony relevant, not intentionally elicited, defendant waived some complaints by not requesting curative relief, and prejudice was not established |
| 2. Whether searches of the two residences were unlawful for lack of consent | Homeowners (Ibbetson’s mother and Soldo) had authority and voluntarily consented; items also in plain view from lawful vantage points | Commonwealth failed to prove voluntary, lawful consent; suppression should have been granted | Denial of suppression affirmed: suppression court's factual findings (consent, plain view) are supported by record |
| 3. Whether demurrer / acquittal was required because items of evidence were lost | Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence linking Appellant to the firearm and other items; even if some items were lost, evidence was sufficient | Lost items (vest, mail, backpacks, T-shirts) deprived defense and warranted relief | Claim waived for failure to meaningfully argue on appeal; alternatively, evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fortenbaugh, 69 A.3d 191 (Pa. 2013) (standard for mistrial review)
- Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2011) (mistrial principles)
- Commonwealth v. Manley, 985 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. 2009) (curative instruction can remove taint of improper testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Strunk, 953 A.2d 577 (Pa. Super. 2008) (failure to request remedy can waive claim)
- Commonwealth v. Ligons, 971 A.2d 1125 (Pa. 2009) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review for suppression legal conclusions)
- Commonwealth v. Gibbons, 529 A.2d 1296 (Pa. Super. 1988) (third-party consent to warrantless searches)
- Commonwealth v. Acosta, 815 A.2d 1078 (Pa. Super. 2003) (government burden to prove consent)
- Commonwealth v. Wimberly, 411 A.2d 1193 (Pa. 1979) (standard on demurrer/sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873 (Pa. 2008) (sufficiency review standard)