Com. v. Kozuch, M.
1805 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 4, 2017Background
- On June 26, 2015, Coalfield’s employees discovered six stamp bags of heroin hidden under the men’s bathroom trash can after observing suspicious customer and employee behavior.
- Owner Miele and cashier Phillip had observed a pattern: defendant Michael Kozuch frequently drove server Desiree Fleegle to work, visited the men’s bathroom immediately before Fleegle entered, and otherwise behaved suspiciously.
- On the incident day Kozuch drove an unknown male (whom he later identified as “Billy”) to Coalfield’s in Fleegle’s car; the man entered the men’s restroom, left quickly without buying anything, and Fleegle immediately attempted to enter the restroom.
- Miele detained Fleegle after the heroin was found; her purse (left behind) contained spoons, syringes, and a cotton swab. Fleegle fled and Kozuch later picked her up in her car.
- Police arrested Kozuch after he admitted driving the unknown male to Coalfield’s; Kozuch denied knowledge of any drug transaction.
- A jury convicted Kozuch of PWID, possession, and possession of drug paraphernalia; he appealed, contesting sufficiency of the evidence for PWID and possession (paraphernalia claim waived). The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict Kozuch of PWID and possession as an accomplice | Commonwealth: circumstantial evidence (surveillance, patterns, Kozuch driving the unknown male, Fleegle’s conduct, Kozuch’s admission and nervousness) supports accomplice liability and constructive possession/delivery | Kozuch: Commonwealth failed to prove he knew of or intended to aid any drug delivery; no drugs recovered from him or the unknown male; no proof who delivered the drugs or when | Court: Affirmed — circumstantial evidence supported accomplice liability and constructive possession; evidence showed intent to aid and active participation |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bricker, 882 A.2d 1008 (Pa. Super. 2005) (factors for intent to deliver include packaging, form, and defendant behavior)
- Commonwealth v. Vargas, 108 A.3d 858 (Pa. Super. 2014) (constructive possession defined as conscious dominion; may be proven circumstantially)
- Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 2004) (accomplice liability: intent to aid and participation; accomplice may be convicted even if principal not prosecuted)
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 135 A.3d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2016) (accomplice liability may be established wholly by circumstantial evidence; only minimal aid required)
- Commonwealth v. Richard, 150 A.3d 504 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for judgment of acquittal challenges sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Causey, 833 A.2d 165 (Pa. Super. 2003) (driver of getaway car can be guilty as an accomplice)
- Commonwealth v. Ross, 375 A.2d 113 (Pa. Super. 1977) (similar principle regarding accomplice liability for drivers)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 146 A.3d 257 (Pa. Super. 2016) (flight can indicate consciousness of guilt)