Com. v. Kline, A.
166 MDA 2014
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 3, 2014Background
- Appellant Abraham Kline shot his partner Jocelyn Romano in an RV on property owned by his mother, then shot himself; Romano died from the injuries.
- Police conducted an exterior search/photo of the outside of the property at Catherine Kline’s consent, before obtaining a warrant for the full property.
- A trooper later entered the RV to photograph the interior, without seizing any items, before a warrant was issued for the property.
- Three days later, hospital personnel removed Appellant’s breathing tube; he was interviewed in the hospital after Miranda warnings and waivers.
- On May 21, 2012, police obtained a DNA warrant and again interviewed Appellant in the hospital after Miranda warnings.
- A jury convicted Appellant of third-degree murder and aggravated assault, and the trial court sentenced him to 20 to 40 years; his post-sentence motion was denied and he timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing within the standard range was inappropriate. | Kline argues the court failed to consider mitigating factors. | Kline contends the sentence was excessive and ignored mitigating factors. | No substantial question; within standard range; affirmed. |
| Whether suppression of RV evidence was proper despite pre-warrant entry. | State argued independent source doctrine applied. | Entry into RV without warrant violated rights. | Independent source doctrine applied; suppression denied. |
| Whether Appellant’s hospital-bed statements were properly admitted. | Statements were voluntary despite medicated state. | Medicated state undermined voluntariness. | Statements properly admitted; not suppressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discretionary sentencing review standards)
- Commonwealth v. Christine, 78 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2013) (substantial question standard for sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (sentence within guideline range appropriate)
- Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912 (Pa. Super. 2010) (mitigating factors alone not a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1107 (Pa. Super. 2003) (mitigating factors alone not substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. McLaurin, 45 A.3d 1131 (Pa. Super. 2012) (inevitable discovery doctrine explained)