Com. v. Sanders, F.
3517 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 18, 2017Background
- On Jan. 16, 2015, Officer Vandermay in uniform in an unmarked car observed Frederick Sanders walking with an unidentified male; the other male extended an amount of cash in his hand.
- Officer Vandermay heard yelling, observed Sanders discard a black object while about 10–15 feet away, and recovered a black key holder containing ten packets of heroin where the object had been dropped.
- An unidentified person then approached the police vehicle and said, “Yo, Black, do you have anything left?” and left the scene.
- Sanders was charged with simple possession and possession with intent to deliver; after a nonjury trial he was convicted of both offenses.
- The trial court sentenced Sanders to 2–4 years’ incarceration plus five years’ probation for possession with intent to deliver; Sanders appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence and admission of the unidentified person’s statement as hearsay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Sanders) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent to deliver | Evidence (abandonment, packaging, buyer with money) supports an inference Sanders intended to sell | Circumstantial evidence was speculative and insufficient to show intent to deliver | Court: Affirmed — circumstantial evidence sufficient to infer intent to deliver |
| Admissibility of hearsay remark by unidentified speaker (“Yo, Black…anything left?”) | Statement was admissible or, if not, harmless because court relied on other competent evidence | Statement was inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial; admission was error | Court: Even if hearsay, admission was harmless error — judge (bench trial) presumed to disregard inadmissible evidence; conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Trinidad, 96 A.3d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Aguado, 760 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2000) (intent to deliver may be inferred from surrounding facts)
- Commonwealth v. Conaway, 791 A.2d 359 (Pa. Super. 2002) (factors relevant to intent to deliver include packaging and defendant behavior)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 765 A.2d 306 (Pa. Super. 2000) (presumption that a judge sitting as fact-finder will disregard inadmissible evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 721 A.2d 344 (Pa. 1999) (harmless-error standard in criminal cases)
- Commonwealth v. Harvey, 526 A.2d 330 (Pa. 1987) (bench fact-finder presumed more critical in assessing evidence and disregarding inadmissible material)