Com. v. Peterson, M.
Com. v. Peterson, M. No. 1537 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Apr 5, 2017Background
- On Feb. 5, 2014 Peterson sold small, branded bags of heroin to Sam Christner (5 bags) and to others; surveillance and text messages supported the sales.
- About two hours after the sale to Christner, Christner was found unconscious with a used syringe and two "Rich Gang" heroin bags in his pocket and later died; toxicology showed high heroin/morphine levels.
- Police stopped Peterson shortly after the transactions, found multiple branded heroin packets on his person, drug paraphernalia in the van, and Peterson admitted ownership of the drugs and to selling Christner five bags.
- Peterson was tried by jury and convicted of multiple counts including drug delivery resulting in death (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2506), possession and possession with intent to deliver, paraphernalia, and conspiracy.
- Trial court sentenced Peterson to an aggregate 8–16 years’ imprisonment; Peterson appealed raising evidentiary, jury-instruction, discovery/spoliation, and sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Peterson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Trial-court evidentiary rulings (Wecht, wife, defense expert) | Rulings were proper | Court limited cross-examination, allowed badgering of wife, limited defense expert | Waived for inadequate appellate development (no authority/analysis) |
| 2. Denial of proposed jury instructions on drug-delivery-resulting-in-death | Instructions were proper | Court failed to instruct on required "but-for" causation and mens rea for death | Waived for failure to object at trial or preserve issue |
| 3. Discovery/spoliation re: additional syringe and foil pipe found after death | Commonwealth complied; no relief | Items should have been tested; alleged spoliation violated Brady/discovery | Waived for undeveloped argument and lack of legal citation/record references |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence for drug-delivery-resulting-in-death | Evidence (sales, branded packets, toxicology, pathologist opinion) established intentional delivery, but-for causation, and recklessness as to death | Argues lack of proof of intent to cause death and insufficient proof of but-for causation given possible other substances/potency uncertainty | Affirmed: evidence sufficient — intentional sale proven; but-for causation and reckless mens rea satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Richard, 150 A.3d 504 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appellate court will not develop undeveloped arguments for appellant)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (preservation rule: specific, timely objection required to preserve charge challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Hitcho, 123 A.3d 731 (Pa. 2015) (mere submission and denial of proposed points for charge does not preserve issue absent specific objection)
- Commonwealth v. Giordano, 121 A.3d 998 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review — view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Commonwealth v. Kakhankham, 132 A.3d 986 (Pa. Super. 2015) (construing 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2506: element one requires intentional delivery; causation is "but-for" and death element requires at least reckless mens rea)
- Parr v. Ford Motor Co., 109 A.3d 682 (Pa. Super. 2014) (civil products-liability precedent referenced by appellant but not controlling on Brady/spoliation issues)