Com. v. Lagares, F., III
Com. v. Lagares, F., III No. 910 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 27, 2017Background
- Police executed a search warrant at 900 E. Princess St. (Oct. 16, 2014); Appellant Fernando Lagares was seized fleeing toward a rear exit.
- Search produced ~70 grams of marijuana, a digital scale, packaging, ~$4,500 cash, and a Mossberg 12‑gauge shotgun found under the living room sofa; shotgun shells were also recovered.
- Appellant initially denied ownership of the shotgun but said his fingerprints likely would be on it because he used it to protect his family; he acknowledged he knew he was not permitted to possess firearms.
- At trial defense counsel conceded Appellant was a person prohibited from possessing firearms and admitted the PWID charge (opening statement).
- During direct exam, Detective Schauer testified Appellant yelled that “he was on probation,” prompting defense counsel to move for a mistrial; the court denied the motion after parties agreed to an amended stipulation and the court offered a curative instruction.
- Jury convicted Appellant of PWID and person not to possess firearms; sentence 5 to 12 years; appeal challenges denial of mistrial and adequacy of curative instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Lagares) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred denying a mistrial after witness referenced Appellant was "on probation" | The brief probation reference was harmless because prior-conviction evidence (stipulation/opening) already informed the jury Appellant was a person prohibited from possessing firearms; curative instruction sufficed | The probation reference was prejudicial extrinsic evidence of other crimes that warranted a mistrial or, at minimum, a stronger curative instruction | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion denying mistrial; reference was fleeting, jury already knew of prior conviction, parties amended stipulation, and no timely objection to charge was made |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jaynes, 135 A.3d 606 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standards for reviewing denial of a mistrial)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 131 A.3d 467 (Pa. 2015) (mistrial is an extreme remedy; required only when defendant deprived of fair trial)
- Commonwealth v. Parker, 957 A.2d 311 (Pa. Super. 2008) (trial court best positioned to assess prejudicial effect of statements; mistrial review is abuse-of-discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Padilla, 923 A.2d 1189 (Pa. Super. 2007) (brief references to other crimes do not automatically require reversal absent demonstrable prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Neff, 860 A.2d 1063 (Pa. Super. 2004) (failure to timely object to jury instructions waives claim of inadequate curative instruction)