Com. v. Sebring, L.
Com. v. Sebring, L. No. 3477 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Jun 27, 2017Background
- On November 8, 2015, Larry R. Sebring brandished a revolver in a park, threatening to shoot a dog; prosecution charged him with recklessly endangering another person (REAP) and disorderly conduct after a preliminary hearing dismissed simple assault.
- Sebring asserted his revolver was incapable of causing harm because an empty cylinder was under the hammer; he moved pretrial to exclude expert testimony on firearm handling and to schedule a date-certain trial window.
- The court previously continued the case from September to the November 2016 term (by agreement). On the day of jury selection (November 1, 2016) Sebring sought a date-certain week in mid-November; the Commonwealth concurred with the date-certain motion but later orally requested a continuance because Detective Boheim (Commonwealth’s expert) was unavailable during the November term.
- The trial court denied Sebring’s date-certain motion and denied the Commonwealth’s eleventh-hour continuance request, citing docket constraints and delay; the court granted Sebring’s motion in part, excluding expert testimony from Detective Boheim about safe firearm handling but allowing testimony limited to the mechanical operation/functioning of the revolver.
- The Commonwealth appealed, arguing the court erred in excluding relevant expert testimony and in denying the continuance; the Superior Court affirmed both rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth’s Argument | Sebring’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony on safe firearm handling | Detective Boheim’s testimony about safe handling was relevant and permissible expert opinion | Such testimony was irrelevant to the central issue (actual present ability to inflict harm); only mechanical functioning matters | Court affirmed exclusion of safe-handling opinion; allowed testimony limited to mechanical operation/functioning of the gun |
| Denial of continuance for Commonwealth | Continuance warranted because Commonwealth’s expert (Detective Boheim) was unavailable for the November term | Request was untimely (made on eve of trial) after Commonwealth had concurred in prior continuance and scheduling; docket prevented rescheduling | Court affirmed denial of continuance as not an abuse of discretion given lateness of request and scheduling constraints |
| Appealability / jurisdictional procedural point | Commonwealth complied with Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) certification that order would terminate or substantially handicap prosecution | — | Court found certification sufficient; appeal allowed as of right |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mendez, 74 A.3d 256 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (REAP requires actual present ability to inflict harm; apparent ability insufficient)
- Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa. Super. 2011) (denial of continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion; prejudice required for reversal)
- Commonwealth v. Norton, 144 A.3d 139 (Pa. Super. 2016) (trial courts need latitude in scheduling; continuances disfavored absent compelling reasons)