Com. v. Taborrelli, D.
2923 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 1, 2017Background
- Philadelphia police arranged two controlled buys in which a confidential informant (CI) received $20 in prerecorded cash, approached Taborrelli, exchanged money, and returned with tablets identified as Endocet.
- The CI gave officers four Endocet tablets after the first buy and the process was repeated on a second occasion; a third encounter produced no purchase.
- Officers stopped and arrested Taborrelli while he was leaving his residence and, in a search incident to arrest, found two pill bottles on his person containing E 712 (10 mg Endocet) pills, Endo 602 (5 mg) pills, and alprazolam-marked tablets; laboratory testing confirmed oxycodone in the Endocet pills.
- Taborrelli testified the CI was a personal acquaintance who had borrowed money and that the CI gave him money to repay a debt and received change, denying any sales; he also produced prescriptions for Endocet 5 mg, OxyContin 80 mg, and alprazolam.
- The trial court convicted Taborrelli of unlawful possession of twelve 10 mg Endocet (E 712) pills and delivery of the eight Endocet pills recovered from the CI, finding he had valid prescriptions for 5 mg Endocet, OxyContin, and alprazolam.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for unlawful possession of 10 mg Endocet | Commonwealth: evidence showed Taborrelli knowingly possessed twelve 10 mg Endocet without a valid prescription | Taborrelli: record shows he had valid prescriptions and the pills were covered | Court: Affirmed; no evidence he had a prescription for 10 mg tablets, conviction supported |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent to deliver (PWID) based on controlled buys | Commonwealth: two observed controlled buys, CI produced Endocet after each buy; intent can be inferred from circumstances | Taborrelli: officer didn’t identify the objects passed; CI may have had pills already or been repaying a loan; search of CI was inadequate | Court: Affirmed; evidence and reasonable inferences support intent to deliver despite defendant’s contentions |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Dale, 836 A.2d 150 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Bruce, 916 A.2d 657 (Pa. Super. 2007) (circumstantial evidence may satisfy burden)
- Commonwealth v. Kinney, 863 A.2d 581 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate courts do not reassess witness credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Bostick, 958 A.2d 543 (Pa. Super. 2008) (elements required for PWID)
- Commonwealth v. Aguado, 760 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2000) (factors permitting inference of intent to deliver)
- Commonwealth v. Daniels, 422 A.2d 196 (Pa. Super. 1980) (licensure as affirmative defense)