Com. v. Madison, T.
1956 WDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Feb 3, 2017Background
- On July 1, 2015, Gabriel Brothers loss-prevention officer Andre Mitchell found untagged store merchandise in Takisha Madison’s bag during an employee bag check; tags matching the items were found in a nearby trash can.
- A store video showed Madison exiting the warehouse with merchandise, entering a fitting room, then discarding tags in the trash; Mitchell testified he did not actually see Madison place items into her bag.
- Madison initially said she bought the items; Mitchell found no corresponding purchase records. Madison signed an admission statement saying she took dresses and shoes.
- A Magisterial District Judge convicted Madison of retail theft and imposed court costs; she appealed and, after a de novo non-jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas (where she proceeded pro se), the court again convicted her and imposed only costs.
- Madison raised three issues on appeal: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (location not established), Best Evidence Rule violation for admitting witness testimony about a videotape instead of the video itself, and prejudicial questioning by the trial court that elicited prior conviction information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Madison) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the precise location of the offense was not established | Complaint and evidence sufficiently allege/establish the offense occurred at Gabriel Brothers in Allegheny County; Madison never disputed county | Location was not established, so no court in Commonwealth had jurisdiction | Court held jurisdiction proper; verdict cured any defect and record contained evidence locating the offense in Allegheny County |
| Whether admission of witness testimony about observations from a videotape (instead of the original tape) violated the Best Evidence Rule | Video not necessary to prove elements; Mitchell’s personal observations and Madison’s admission independently proved theft | Testimony about the tape (an after-the-fact viewing) violated Best Evidence Rule requiring originals for recordings | Court held no violation: Rule 1002 not triggered because the video was not integral to proving elements; other evidence sufficed |
| Whether the trial court’s questioning (eliciting prior non-crimen falsi convictions) required a new trial | Trial court’s questions were clarifying and did not taint the verdict given properly admitted evidence of guilt | Court’s sua sponte questions elicited inadmissible prior-conviction testimony and were prejudicial, especially to a pro se defendant | Court found error but harmless: any prejudice was de minimis or cumulative given uncontradicted evidence (untagged items, no purchase record, admission) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tarsnane, 85 A.2d 606 (Pa. Super. 1952) (verdict cures defects where place of commission is not disputed)
- Commonwealth v. Woodard, 129 A.3d 480 (Pa. 2015) (standard for appellate review of evidentiary rulings and abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 719 A.2d 1049 (Pa. Super. 1998) (common-law Best Evidence Rule applies to writings and documentary proof)
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 764 A.2d 82 (Pa. Super. 2000) (discussing Rule 1002 and when original recordings are required)
- Commonwealth v. Townsend, 747 A.2d 376 (Pa. Super. 2000) (original recording required only when contents are integral to controlling issue)
- Commonwealth v. Fransen, 42 A.3d 1100 (Pa. Super. 2012) (harmless-error framework for erroneously admitted evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Hammer, 494 A.2d 1054 (Pa. 1985) (commentary on waiver where judge questions witness and pro se defendants)
- Commonwealth v. Crosby, 791 A.2d 366 (Pa. 2002) (corpus delecti rule requires independent corroboration of confession)