Com. v. Patrick, C.
523 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 7, 2016Background
- Defendant Carl Patrick was convicted by a jury of Possession With Intent to Deliver (crack cocaine) and Criminal Use of a Communication Facility based on a controlled buy on June 24, 2014 involving confidential informant Deborah Arnold.
- Officers observed Arnold call a number in their presence, tell the caller she wanted "100," go to 1328 Lehman Street, enter the rear apartment, return within a minute and hand officers a baggie later identified as crack.
- Arnold identified Patrick from a driver's license photo, testified she had used the phone number and visited the address before (to explain voice recognition), and had multiple prior and pending theft convictions; defense impeached her with four convictions within ten years but sought to use four older theft convictions which the court excluded.
- Patrick was arrested months later to avoid compromising other investigations; at arrest he possessed the cellphone linked to the June 24 call.
- At sentencing the court imposed 1–3 years’ incarceration (RRRI eligibility nine months); Patrick challenged admissibility of older convictions for impeachment, admission of testimony about prior contact, sufficiency of the evidence, and sentencing.
- The Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s detailed Rule 1925 opinion addressing impeachment under Pa.R.E. 609, relevance/prejudice of prior-contact testimony, sufficiency of single-witness testimony, and discretionary-sentencing review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Patrick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admissibility of >10-year convictions for impeachment under Pa.R.E. 609 | Rule 609 permits older convictions only if probative value substantially outweighs prejudice; court properly exercises discretion to exclude remote convictions | Trial court erred by denying leave to impeach Arnold with theft convictions older than ten years | Affirmed—trial court did not abuse discretion; recent convictions sufficed to impeach and older ones were too remote |
| 2. Admission of testimony that Arnold previously called/visited Patrick | Testimony was relevant background to explain identification/voice recognition and did not imply prior crimes | Testimony impermissibly invited jury to infer prior drug dealings; counsel’s objection and mistrial request should have been granted or curative instruction given | Affirmed—testimony relevant, not unfairly prejudicial; no manifest necessity for sua sponte mistrial; curative-instruction issue waived |
| 3. Sufficiency of the evidence to convict | Uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness may sustain conviction; corroborating facts (call in presence, controlled buy, strip searches, recorded bill serials, cellphone possession) supported verdict | Arnold’s testimony was unreliable and uncorroborated (no forensics on baggie, defendant lacked recorded cash at arrest) so evidence was insufficient | Affirmed—viewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth, evidence sufficient for PWID and communication-facility counts |
| 4. Discretionary aspects of sentencing (consideration of arrests/pendings) | Sentencing court considered appropriate factors (prior convictions, probation/parole violations, rehabilitative needs); even if some info imperfect, court offered significant other support and stayed within guideline range | Sentencing court relied on improper factors (West Virginia arrests of unknown disposition; pending charges) producing a manifestly unreasonable sentence | Affirmed—defendant raised a substantial question; no abuse of discretion; sentence within guidelines and supported by other proper factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Miles, 846 A.2d 132 (Pa. Super. 2004) (admission of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 986 A.2d 84 (Pa. 2009) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Faulcon, 301 A.2d 375 (Pa. 1973) (single witness testimony can suffice for conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Randall, 528 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1987) (factors for admitting convictions older than ten years under Rule 609)
- Commonwealth v. Stewart, 317 A.2d 616 (Pa. 1974) (standards for sua sponte mistrial/manifest necessity)
- Commonwealth v. Fears, 836 A.2d 52 (Pa. 2003) (sufficiency review standard; view evidence in Commonwealth's favor)
- Commonwealth v. Lippert, 887 A.2d 1277 (Pa. Super. 2005) (circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction)
- Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54 (Pa. Super. 2003) (substantial question for appellate review of sentencing when improper factors alleged)
- Commonwealth v. P.L.S., 894 A.2d 120 (Pa. Super. 2006) (sentence upheld where court cited significant other support despite consideration of improper factor)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review for sentencing abuse of discretion)