243 A.3d 991
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Police found two deceased women in a first-floor apartment; Naseema Sami and her 6-year-old son were located hiding in the bedroom; Sami gave a statement admitting to killing both women during an altercation.
- No drugs or paraphernalia were found on Sami or in her vehicle at arrest; detectives did not seek toxicology testing and did not search Sami’s home.
- Sami’s family later reported finding drug paraphernalia in her bedroom (pipes, baggies, white powder, a brown crystalline residue); defense investigators recovered some items, but some were discarded and alleged meth/cocaine items were never tested by police.
- Defense filed an insanity notice; defense expert diagnosed Delusional Disorder and noted occasional marijuana use. The Commonwealth’s expert diagnosed a Substance Intoxication/Substance Induced Psychotic Disorder, attributing symptoms to marijuana and “very possibly other drugs.”
- The trial court granted the defense’s motion in part and barred the Commonwealth from presenting evidence or eliciting testimony about any drug possession or use by Sami other than marijuana, and prohibited the Commonwealth expert from testifying about drugs other than marijuana.
- The Commonwealth appealed the in limine ruling as substantially handicapping the prosecution; the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s exclusion order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence of Sami’s possession/use of drugs other than marijuana under Pa.R.E. 404(b) | Evidence of other drugs is relevant to show access, knowledge, intent, and state of mind and supports expert opinion that intoxication affected conduct | Evidence of other drugs is speculative, lacks temporal nexus to the offenses, was never tested or found on Sami, and is unduly prejudicial | Exclusion affirmed — prosecution failed to show a close factual nexus or reliable proof; probative value outweighed by unfair prejudice |
| Permitting prosecution expert to opine about non-marijuana drug use | Expert may rely on the alleged drug evidence to form opinion that voluntary drug use caused or contributed to psychosis | Expert cannot base opinions on unproven or speculative facts; doing so is impermissible and prejudicial | Expert barred from testifying about drugs other than marijuana; expert opinions must rest on facts proven or adequately established |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (establishes limits and exceptions for admitting prior bad acts under Rule 404(b))
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 952 A.2d 594 (Pa. 2008) (relevance is the threshold for admissibility of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Ross, 57 A.3d 85 (Pa. Super. 2012) (counsels caution: exceptions to Rule 404(b) require a close factual nexus)
- Commonwealth v. Sitler, 144 A.3d 156 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discusses connective relevance required for prior bad acts evidence)
- Commonwealth v. duPont, 730 A.2d 970 (Pa. Super. 1999) (prior substance abuse may be admissible to rebut insanity defense when defense puts drug-induced causation at issue and offers detailed testimony)
- City of Philadelphia v. W.C.A.B. (Kriebel), 29 A.3d 762 (Pa. 2011) (expert opinion must be based on facts established in the record and not mere conjecture)