Com. v. Mulhern, C.
1546 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 18, 2017Background
- Mulhern was convicted after a jury trial of firearms not to be carried without a license and criminal attempt to commit illegal sale or transfer of a firearm.
- Hutchinson, a confidential informant for the Lackawanna County Drug Task Force, facilitated a recorded undercover transaction involving Mulhern.
- Mulhern allegedly sought to trade a .32 caliber handgun for heroin; Hutchinson testified to arrangements and meetings.
- Detectives Condrad and others surveilled Mulhern and Hutchinson, arranged a controlled meeting, and recorded communications confirming Mulhern’s intent.
- A rear-pack backpack concealed the gun; a Thames Arm revolver and five rounds were recovered when Mulhern was arrested.
- Mulhern testified that Hutchinson solicited the deal and pushed him to sell the firearm, while investigators maintained Mulhern followed Hutchinson’s lead; the jury rejected the entrapment defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entrapment was established as a matter of law | Mulhern argues Hutchinson induced the crime; law favors entrapment | Commonwealth contends police conduct created only opportunity, not entrapment | No entrapment as a matter of law; jury verdict sustained |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by limiting cross-examination of Hutchinson | Mulhern claims Hutchinson’s prior crimes affect credibility | Commonwealth contends limits were proper to avoid confusion | No abuse of discretion; trial court’s limitations were proper under Rule 403/609 and relevance standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Marion, 981 A.2d 230 (Pa. Super. 2009) (entrapment focuses on police conduct under objective test)
- Commonwealth v. Weiskerger, 554 A.2d 10 (Pa. 1989) (outrageous conduct required for entrapment as matter of law)
- Commonwealth v. Zingarelli, 839 A.2d 1064 (Pa. Super. 2003) (opportunity alone not entrapment; must show more conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Baez, 720 A.2d 711 (Pa. 1998) (limits on cross-examination to prevent distraction/prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Akrie, 159 A.3d 982 (Pa. Super. 2017) (trial court latitude to limit confrontation based on relevance and fairness)