Com. v. Pelier, J.
284 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- On Nov. 5, 2015, two plainclothes Scranton officers in an unmarked car observed Pelier in the driver’s seat of a red Mercedes in a high‑crime neighborhood; he gave conflicting stories about his residence and appeared nervous.
- Officers asked Pelier to step out and, with his consent, conducted a frisk; the officer detected a marijuana odor from Pelier’s midsection.
- A K‑9 exterior sniff alerted to the vehicle; a subsequent search of the interior revealed numerous individually packaged glassine baggies and packets of heroin (151 baggies total) packaged consistent with distribution.
- Pelier was arrested; a search incident to arrest and a strip search at police HQ revealed marijuana hidden under his scrotum.
- A jury convicted Pelier of PWID (heroin), simple possession, contraband (bringing controlled substance into a prison), possession of marijuana, and related paraphernalia offenses.
- The trial court sentenced Pelier to an aggregate 5–10 years’ incarceration; Pelier appealed raising sufficiency, suppression, and jury‑instruction challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Pelier's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of evidence for PWID and simple possession (heroin) | Evidence insufficient because heroin was not on Pelier’s person; no proof of constructive possession | Circumstantial evidence (sole occupant/driver, control of vehicle, evasive conduct, quantity/packaging consistent with distribution) supported constructive possession and intent to deliver | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to prove constructive possession and PWID |
| 2. Sufficiency for contraband (bringing controlled substance into a prison) | Pelier did not volitionally enter police HQ; lacked requisite mens rea to “bring” contraband into a prison | Pelier intentionally entered HQ while concealing marijuana after being warned he would be charged for bringing contraband into the facility | Affirmed — evidence supported intentional bringing of contraband into the police facility |
| 3. Suppression: lawfulness of detention and searches | Initial detention premised on possible parole violation (not criminal conduct) — unreasonable; suppression required | Initial encounter was consensual; frisk consented to and revealed marijuana odor, providing reasonable suspicion; K‑9 sniff gave probable cause for vehicle search; searches lawful | Affirmed — denial of suppression proper; searches supported by reasonable suspicion and probable cause |
| 4. Jury instruction: definition of “prison” under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5123(a) | Instruction too broad; police HQ should not qualify as a “prison” under the statute; jury misled | Dictionary and common usage support that holding cells/police HQ function as places of confinement; legislative purpose covers places where confined persons could obtain contraband | Affirmed — trial court’s dictionary‑based definition was accurate and not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Coleman, 130 A.3d 38 (Pa. Super. 2015) (sufficiency challenge review and order of issues)
- Commonwealth v. Trinidad, 96 A.3d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Bess, 789 A.2d 757 (Pa. Super. 2002) (PWID may be inferred from quantity and circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Aguado, 760 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2000) (factors relevant to intent to deliver)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 818 A.2d 514 (Pa. Super. 2003) (circumstantial evidence standard)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 146 A.3d 257 (Pa. Super. 2016) (constructive possession doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Parker, 847 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2004) (constructive possession defined as conscious dominion)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 865 A.2d 761 (Pa. 2004) (post‑crime conduct admissible to show guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Haynes, 116 A.3d 640 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Ranson, 103 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2014) (three levels of police‑citizen interaction)
- Commonwealth v. Freeman, 150 A.3d 32 (Pa. Super. 2016) (reasonable suspicion totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 935 A.2d 1275 (Pa. 2007) (positive canine sniff of vehicle can give probable cause for search)
- Commonwealth v. Rogers, 849 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 2004) (canine sniff jurisprudence)
- Commonwealth v. Veon, 150 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2016) (jury instruction review and harmless‑error framework)