251 A.3d 1286
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- Early-morning one-car crash (March 22, 2018); Amy McFalls found nearby, exhibited signs of impairment; arrested for DUI and later convicted at a bench trial.
- While in a holding cell at Norristown PD, McFalls removed her sweater, flushed the toilet causing an overflow, resisted restraints, and spat in an officer’s face; surveillance video was introduced at trial.
- McFalls was indicted for DUI, institutional vandalism, and aggravated harassment by a prisoner; jury convicted on the two institutional offenses; aggregate sentence of 2 to 23 months plus 2 years probation.
- McFalls served a subpoena duces tecum on the police chief requesting broad personnel files, policies, training materials, and use-of-force records; the Police Department moved to quash as overbroad and burdensome.
- Trial court quashed the subpoena and later denied narrowed discovery as overbroad; McFalls appealed the quash (arguing compulsory process/confrontation violations) and also argued the trial court erred by not sending a written copy of the necessity defense to the jury during deliberations.
- Superior Court affirmed: it held the subpoena was overly broad and properly quashed (any error harmless given overwhelming evidence), and the written-instruction claim was waived because McFalls did not make the specific request at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McFalls) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Police Dept.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in quashing subpoena seeking police personnel files, policies, training, and use-of-force records | Subpoena was a proper vehicle; requests were relevant to impeach officer credibility and not overbroad | Request was overly broad, unduly burdensome, a fishing expedition; discovery remedy (Rule 573) more appropriate | Quash affirmed — subpoena was overly broad and McFalls failed to articulate a reasonable basis; no abuse of discretion; any error harmless given overwhelming evidence |
| Whether jury should have been given a written copy of the necessity defense under Pa.R.Crim.P. 646(B)(1) | Trial court allowed written elements of offenses so it should have provided written necessity instruction upon request | Trial court exercised discretion; McFalls failed to make a specific, timely request for the necessity instruction in writing at trial | Waived — McFalls did not specifically request the necessity instruction in writing at trial; appellate argument raises a new theory; issue not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mejia-Arias, 734 A.2d 870 (Pa. Super. 1999) (subpoena duces tecum is proper to secure police records but requests must be specified)
- Commonwealth v. McElroy, 665 A.2d 813 (Pa. Super. 1995) (suggesting subpoena duces tecum as proper means to obtain materials not in Commonwealth possession)
- Commonwealth v. Mucci, 143 A.3d 399 (Pa. Super. 2016) (defendant must articulate a reasonable basis; no wholesale inspection of investigatory files)
- Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 946 A.2d 645 (Pa. 2008) (privacy of officers and personnel records requires narrowly targeted requests)
- Commonwealth v. Young, 748 A.2d 166 (Pa. 1999) (harmless error standard where properly admitted evidence so overwhelms any error that it could not have contributed to verdict)
- Commonwealth v. Barnett, 50 A.3d 176 (Pa. Super. 2012) (trial court discretion on permitting written materials to jury)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 606 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. 1992) (preservation rule: timely and specific objection required to preserve issue for appeal)
- Commonwealth v. York, 465 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Super. 1983) (new theories of relief cannot be raised for the first time on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Gatlos, 76 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellate court may affirm trial court on any correct ground even if not relied upon below)