Com. v. Schrock, J.
841 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 10, 2018Background
- Police were summoned to private property where Schrock and Katelyn Rock were found in a small room above a shed; owner asked they be removed.
- Trooper Benjamin Frantz (a certified Drug Recognition Expert, DRE) entered with consent, observed smoke and odors, droopy eyelids, lethargic responses, and found drug paraphernalia and suspected heroin capsules in Rock’s open purse and marijuana in Schrock’s jacket.
- Schrock was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana.
- At a suppression hearing and in pretrial motions, Schrock sought to bar the trooper from giving expert testimony or offering opinions based on his DRE training.
- The Commonwealth said the trooper would testify as a lay witness (not tendered as an expert) but would base opinions on his training and experience.
- The trial court ruled that because the Commonwealth would not offer Frantz as an expert, he could testify about his sensory observations but could not offer opinions that require scientific/technical/specialized knowledge under Pa.R.E. 702 (e.g., identify odor as recent heroin use, describe items as a heroin kit, or conclude Schrock was recently under the influence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Schrock) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a police officer with DRE training may give lay-opinion testimony attributing observed signs to recent narcotic use when not offered as an expert | Frantz may give lay opinions that Schrock was "high" and that odor/items indicated narcotic use based on his observations plus DRE training; admissibility goes to weight | Opinion that connects observed signs to specific drug use requires expert testimony; lay witness limited to pure observations | Court upheld trial court: officer may describe observations but cannot give opinions requiring specialized knowledge under Rule 702 when not tendered as an expert |
| Whether identification of an odor or paraphernalia as indicative of recent heroin use is admissible as lay opinion | The odor and the notion of a "drug kit" are within common knowledge and admissible as lay opinion | Such identifications rest on specialized training; therefore expert testimony is required to connect signs to specific drugs | Court held identification as recent heroin use or labeling items a "heroin kit" impermissible without expert qualification |
| Whether observations like droopy eyelids and lethargy permit a lay witness to conclude recent opiate use | These are typical, obvious indicia that a lay witness may opine on | Connecting these signs to opiate intoxication requires specialized knowledge (Rule 702) | Court held observations admissible but conclusions attributing them to opiate use are expert territory |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in excluding Frantz’s opinion testimony | Exclusion was improper; lay opinion should be allowed and cross‑examination addresses reliability | Trial court properly applied Rules 701–702 given Commonwealth did not tender Frantz as an expert | Court affirmed trial court’s exercise of discretion; no abuse found |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gause, 164 A.3d 532 (Pa. Super. 2017) (police officer’s opinion tying non-obvious signs to drug impairment required expert testimony)
- Commonwealth v. DiPanfilo, 993 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2010) (expert required to connect observed symptoms to drug impairment)
- Commonwealth v. Allison, 703 A.2d 16 (Pa. 1997) (lay witness may testify to observations but not give expert medical conclusions)
- Commonwealth v. Yanoff, 690 A.2d 260 (Pa. Super. 1997) (police officer not qualified to render medical/expert opinion absent foundation)
- Commonwealth v. Yedinak, 676 A.2d 1217 (Pa. Super. 1996) (distinguishing lay observations from expert causal conclusions)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524 (Pa. Super. 2015) (distinct odor of burnt marijuana can be a sufficient lay observation)
- Commonwealth v. Etchison, 916 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2007) (officer odor observations relevant to reasonable suspicion and probable cause)