Com. v. McRae, W.
2572 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 6, 2017Background
- Victim Gerald Rothbart was assaulted and robbed after responding to a Craigslist ad; investigation connected Brandon Fraser (who posted the ad) and William McRae to the robbery; Fraser was later found murdered.
- Police executed search warrants at McRae’s residence and obtained surveillance video implicating McRae and others; intercepts of calls between McRae and cooperating witness Kwaku Sims (with Sims’ consent) aided in locating McRae in New York.
- McRae was arrested in New York (Aug. 19, 2013), interviewed there after Miranda warnings (with his retained New York counsel not present), waived rights and gave a statement; he waived extradition and was interviewed again in Pennsylvania (Dec. 18, 2013).
- McRae was tried on consolidated indictments for first-degree murder, conspiracy, robbery, unlawful restraint, theft-related offenses, tampering with evidence, and prohibited possession of a firearm; jury convicted on most counts and trial court imposed life without parole plus additional imprisonment.
- On appeal McRae challenged (A) denial of mistrial after alleged admission of prior-bad-act evidence, (B) admissibility/constitutionality of consensual phone intercepts under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704, (C) denial of motions to suppress statements from the New York and Pennsylvania interviews, and (D) late disclosure/admission of a witness identifying herself as the woman who delivered a shell casing.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | McRae's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| (A) Denial of mistrial for alleged admission of prior-bad-act evidence | Any contested statement during played police interview was not preserved in transcript; no prejudicial error shown | Trial court granted in limine; playing interview injected prior-bad-act evidence and required mistrial | Waived for appellate review due to absence of transcript and undeveloped briefing; claim not reached on merits |
| (B) Admissibility / constitutionality of consensual phone intercepts under § 5704 | Intercepts complied with statutory requirements and Rekasie controls; no reasonable expectation of privacy in telephone calls | Statute violates Fourth Amendment and PA Const. art. I, § 8; Riley suggests heightened privacy for phones | Denied relief; Rekasie controls—one-party consent telephone interceptions do not require prior probable-cause warrant; Riley inapplicable here |
| (C) Suppression of statements made Aug. 19 and Dec. 18, 2013 | Statements voluntary after Miranda waivers; suppression court’s factual findings supported record | Statements should be suppressed (coercion/invalid waiver / counsel-related issues) | Waived on appeal because recordings/transcripts were not included in certified record; appellate review precluded |
| (D) Late disclosure / Brady/Rule 573 violation for witness identifying herself as the shell-delivering woman | Testimony was inculpatory and cumulative; any disclosure lapse did not prejudice defendant; trial court acted within discretion | Late disclosure violated Brady and Rule 573; testimony should have been excluded or remedy granted | No Brady violation (testimony was inculpatory, not favorable); any discovery lapse harmless because testimony was cumulative and defendant showed no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rekasie, 778 A.2d 624 (Pa. 2001) (one-party consensual telephone interceptions do not require prior probable-cause judicial authorization under PA constitution)
- Commonwealth v. Brion, 652 A.2d 287 (Pa. 1994) (PA constitution requires warrant for body-wire recordings of in-home face-to-face conversations; distinguished from telephone interceptions)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (searches of cell phone contents incident to arrest generally require a warrant; court declined to extend Riley to consensual intercepts)
- Commonwealth v. Counterman, 719 A.2d 284 (Pa. 1998) (trial court has broad discretion to remedy discovery violations; defendant must show prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Diego, 119 A.3d 370 (Pa. Super. 2015) (refused to extend Riley’s heightened privacy protections outside search-incident-to-arrest context)