Com. v. Murray, A.
3010 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- Parole agent Todd Clark supervised appellant Abdul Murray; Clark visited Murray’s group home after Murray missed meetings and later ordered Murray to report to the parole office.
- Murray admitted at the parole office that he wrested a .357 revolver from housemate Ervin Bonner and gave it to an acquaintance; Clark arrested Murray for admitting possession and reviewed Murray’s cell phone.
- Two near-simultaneous text messages on Murray’s phone referenced being "locked up," personal items at 1247 West Huntingdon Street, and an item taken from “the bully” hidden under the tub.
- Clark searched the boarding-house bathroom (with permission) and recovered an unloaded .357 revolver hidden under the tub; he turned the gun over to police.
- Murray moved to suppress his statements and the phone evidence, invoked the corpus delicti rule, and later raised Brady and after-discovered evidence claims based on Bonner’s identity and subsequent arrest; the court denied relief and convicted Murray of possession by a prohibited person.
- On direct appeal, Murray argued Brady violation, entitlement to a new trial based on after-discovered evidence, corpus delicti error, Fourth Amendment and Riley-related suppression error for the phone search, and failure to authenticate text messages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady nondisclosure of Bonner identity/arrest | Commonwealth withheld exculpatory/impeachment info about Bonner and similar arrest | Murray knew Bonner’s identity pretrial (and defense had access to records via public defender); no suppressed Brady material | No Brady violation; evidence was known/available to defense |
| After-discovered evidence (Bonner/others) | Identities and Bonner’s later arrest are new and would change verdict | Defense could have obtained this before trial with reasonable diligence | Denied — fails first prong (discoverable with diligence) |
| Corpus delicti for admitting Murray’s statements | Commonwealth failed to establish crime occurred before admitting Murray’s statements | Circumstantial evidence (concealed gun in boarding house) more consistent with criminal activity than accident | Statements properly admitted; corpus delicti met by preponderance |
| Warrantless phone search / Riley applicability | Riley requires warrant to search phone seized incident to arrest; messages should be suppressed | Parolees have diminished privacy; parole search exception permits warrantless searches on reasonable suspicion | Riley inapplicable to parole search; Clark had reasonable suspicion and search was lawful |
| Authentication of text messages | Messages not properly authenticated before admission | Messages connected to Murray by possession of phone, content matching events, and agent testimony | Authentication sufficient under Pa. R. Evid. 901; admission not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ovalles, 144 A.3d 957 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Brady standard and defense access to evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 950 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2008) (after‑discovered evidence test)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 828 A.2d 1094 (Pa. Super. 2003) (corpus delicti principles)
- Commonwealth v. Young, 904 A.2d 947 (Pa. Super. 2006) (two‑step corpus delicti procedure)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (warrant requirement for cell‑phone searches incident to arrest)
- Commonwealth v. Curry, 900 A.2d 390 (Pa. Super. 2006) (parolee diminished expectation of privacy; reasonable suspicion standard)
- Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996 (Pa. Super. 2011) (authentication of electronic communications)