Com. v. Medina, J.
Com. v. Medina, J. No. 1559 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 17, 2017Background
- On March 30, 2011, Philadelphia Narcotics Field Unit officers surveilled Hunting Park Ave./Fairhill St. for street narcotics activity.
- Officers observed Juan Medina meet briefly with another man, walk with his right hand in his jacket, then enter a corner store; officers approached and announced themselves.
- Sergeant Friel saw Medina remove a clear plastic bag from his right jacket pocket and discard it under a table; officers recovered the bag during the arrest after a scuffle.
- The recovered bag tested positive for heroin and weighed 173.7 grams; an expert (Officer Morrone) testified that the quantity, packaging, color and consistency supported an intent to deliver rather than personal use.
- Medina was tried by jury, convicted of possession with intent to deliver (PWID), and sentenced to 7–14 years; he appealed raising four issues challenging expert testimony admission, sufficiency of evidence (delivery and possession), and prosecutorial misconduct in closing.
- The Superior Court affirmed, concluding the claims were waived or meritless and that the evidence supported conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Medina) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admission of expert opinion testimony | Expert testimony on packaging/distribution was proper and admissible under Pa.R.E. 702 | Trial court abused discretion by admitting Officer Morrone’s personal-opinion testimony | Waived (no contemporaneous objection); alternatively, admission not an abuse — testimony admissible from qualified expert |
| 2. Sufficiency: delivery/transfer element | Quantity, packaging, condition, and attendant circumstances support intent to deliver | No evidence of delivery or transportation; insufficient to prove intent to distribute | Rejected — circumstantial evidence (173.7 g, packaging, expert) sufficient to infer intent to deliver |
| 3. Sufficiency: possession | Recovery of bag discarded from Medina’s jacket establishes possession | Commonwealth failed to prove Medina possessed the drugs beyond a reasonable doubt | Rejected — officer observed removal from jacket and discard; possession proven |
| 4. Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Prosecutor’s comments were permissible or not prejudicial under the circumstances | Comments improperly vouched/argued facts beyond evidence and suggested guilt by silence | Rejected — trial court didn’t abuse discretion in overruling objection; claim meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Watson, 945 A.2d 174 (expert testimony admission standard)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 596 A.2d 840 (trial court discretion on expert testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Melendez-Rodriguez, 856 A.2d 1278 (preservation requirement for evidentiary objections)
- Commonwealth v. Roberts, 133 A.3d 759 (sufficiency review standard)
- Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 A.3d 852 (sufficiency and circumstantial evidence principles)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 956 A.2d 1024 (elements required for PWID: possession and intent to deliver)