Com. v. Johnson, B.
328 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- On May 27, 2016, Johnson called 911 reporting her boyfriend had assaulted her; State Police arrived at the roadside and interviewed both.
- Johnson told Trooper Clark Rupert had dropped a small glassine bag of marijuana as officers approached; she admitted picking it up and throwing it over a guide rail to obscure it.
- Trooper Clark recovered the bag where Johnson indicated; a field test was positive for marijuana. Johnson was charged initially with possession; the complaint was later amended to add tampering/fabricating physical evidence (18 Pa.C.S. § 4910).
- The district court dismissed the possession charge and bound Johnson over on the tampering charge. Johnson filed a pretrial habeas petition challenging the Commonwealth’s prima facie case.
- The trial court granted the habeas petition, concluding the Commonwealth failed to prove Johnson knew an investigation into the marijuana was pending. The Commonwealth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commonwealth established a prima facie case for tampering with or fabricating physical evidence | Evidence shows Johnson concealed the marijuana from police while officers were approaching, supporting knowledge of an impending investigation and intent to impair evidence | Johnson argued she abandoned the marijuana (Delgado) and/or disclosed its location to officers, negating intent to conceal | Reversed trial court: prima facie case established; evidence reasonably supports inference she hid the marijuana from police knowing they would investigate |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Karetny, 880 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2005) (prima facie sufficiency is a question of law reviewed plenarily)
- Commonwealth v. Hess, 414 A.2d 1043 (Pa.) (procedural authority for appeal after dismissal on pretrial habeas)
- Commonwealth v. Marti, 779 A.2d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2001) (prima facie standard and that inferences favorable to Commonwealth are to be credited)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 904 A.2d 24 (Pa. Super. 2006) (elements of tampering/fabricating physical evidence explained)
- Commonwealth v. Delgado, 679 A.2d 223 (Pa. 1996) (distinguishes abandonment when contraband is discarded in plain view during pursuit)
- In re Vencil, 152 A.3d 235 (Pa. 2017) (noting plenary, de novo review for pure legal questions)