Com. v. Lafferty, S.
573 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 27, 2017Background
- Police executed a warrant at Lafferty’s Pittsburgh residence (Oct. 29, 2013); they found his laptop on his bed with a file‑sharing program running and later forensics disclosed child pornography on the device.
- Lafferty admitted the computer was his but denied responsibility for the images, contending others (notably David Cross) had access and could have downloaded the files; parties stipulated Lafferty lacked access to the computer from Apr 5, 2013 to Jun 27, 2013.
- Forensic testimony linked downloads to activity associated with the name “Shane” and showed a pause in downloads while Lafferty was away, then resumption after his return.
- During jury deliberations, Corporal Goodyear (a Commonwealth witness who had testified at trial) entered the jury room twice to play Lafferty’s recorded interview; defense counsel objected but declined to move for mistrial after consulting the client.
- The jury convicted Lafferty of two counts of possession of child pornography; post‑sentence motions were denied and Lafferty appealed, raising (inter alia) jury intrusion, sufficiency and weight of the evidence, and discretionary sentencing claims.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Lafferty's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury intrusion during deliberations (Commonwealth witness entered jury room to play audio) | Entry was inadvertent, court questioned witnesses, defense declined mistrial during trial, issue waived | Intrusion and witness‑juror interaction denied due process; trial court should have held a Remmer hearing and given curative instructions; new trial required | Waived: defense counsel chose not to move for mistrial; court’s post‑event questioning sufficed; no relief granted |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove knowing possession/control | Laptop was Lafferty’s, located on his bed with file‑sharing active; downloads associated with his name and coincided with his return; admissions support knowing possession | Lack of exclusive control; others had access and could have downloaded files | Sufficient: evidence viewed in Commonwealth’s favor supports knowing possession and control |
| Weight of the evidence (verdict against the weight) | Jury credited Commonwealth forensics and chronology; contradictory testimony about Cross did not make verdict shocking | Evidence tenuous; reasonable doubt exists because others had access and eyewitnesses implicated Cross | No abuse of discretion: credibility and weight were for the jury and trial court; verdict did not shock conscience |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence (2–4 years, plus probation) | Court considered gravity (hundreds of images), victim/community impact, prior probationary history, and rehabilitative concerns; standard‑range sentence appropriate | Sentence excessive, failed to consider mitigating factors and rehabilitative needs | No abuse of discretion: court considered statutory factors and imposed standard‑range sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (court must inquire into extraneous influences on jurors when raised)
- Commonwealth v. Meekins, 403 A.2d 591 (Pa. Super. 1979) (object or move for mistrial when prejudicial event occurs at trial)
- Commonwealth v. Boring, 684 A.2d 561 (Pa. Super. 1996) (timeliness requirement for mistrial motion; waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Cole, 135 A.3d 191 (Pa. Super. 2016) (entry to jury room by DA office employee challenged but found waived)
- Commonwealth v. Baumhammers, 960 A.2d 59 (Pa. 2008) (absence of contemporaneous objection renders claim waived)
- Commonwealth v. McFadden, 156 A.3d 299 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536 (Pa. Super. 2015) (weight‑of‑evidence standard: verdict will be overturned only if it shocks the conscience)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (credibility and weight are for the fact‑finder)
- Commonwealth v. Luketic, 162 A.3d 1149 (Pa. Super. 2017) (when a sentencing claim raises a substantial question; standards of review for discretionary aspects)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing court must consider public protection, gravity, and rehabilitative needs)
- Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2016) (claim that sentence is manifestly excessive raises a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Zelinski, 573 A.2d 569 (Pa. Super. 1990) (procedural requirements for appellate review of discretionary sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (ineffective assistance claims generally reserved for collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Burno, 94 A.3d 956 (Pa. 2014) (same)