Com. v. Taggart, C.
591 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- Police executed a search warrant on Aug. 15–16, 2014 at 35 Foundry Street, Coatesville; officers found Taggart naked in bed and, after resisting arrest (tased), secured the residence.
- Search recovered a loaded, stolen Ruger 9mm (extended magazine), ammunition, 414 bags of heroin, cocaine, scales, baggies, and cutting agents.
- Taggart was charged with Persons Not to Possess Firearm (18 Pa.C.S. § 6105), Receiving Stolen Property, drug-possession offenses, paraphernalia, and resisting arrest; he was convicted by jury Nov. 12, 2015.
- Pretrial suppression motions challenged the warrant’s dates and other alleged defects; the trial court denied suppression (error in one date deemed inadvertent judicial error). A later pro se motion for reconsideration (filed while represented) was denied.
- Parties stipulated out of jury presence that Taggart had an enumerated prior felony; jury found constructive possession of the firearm. Taggart appealed pro se after a Grazier hearing confirmed his waiver of appellate counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Taggart) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of search warrant / suppression | Warrant valid despite minor typographical/date errors; affidavit and affiant testimony support probable cause | Warrant contained multiple defects (wrong dates, missing seals, not filed); therefore invalid and suppression required | Denied; court credited affiant, treated date errors as inadvertent judicial error and followed precedent allowing minor errors; suppression denied |
| Jury/bench conversion re: 6105 conviction | Stipulation of prior felony allowed jury to decide possession element; court’s post-verdict finding followed jury’s interrogatory | Court improperly converted jury trial to bench trial and entered guilty verdict on §6105 without jury determination | Waived (no timely objection) and meritless; conviction based on jury finding of constructive possession plus stipulation of prior felony |
| Sufficiency of evidence — Persons Not to Possess Firearm (§6105) | Evidence (firearm in dining room, proximity to Taggart, mail/bills at residence, DNA partial match, other circumstantial facts) suffices to prove constructive possession | Proximity alone insufficient; Taggart was asleep and not observed handling gun, so conviction rests on conjecture | Affirmed; totality of circumstantial evidence supports constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency of evidence — Receiving Stolen Property (RSP) | Stolen status stipulated; constructive possession and consciousness-of-guilt (struggle, drugs, quantity) support knowledge that firearm was stolen | No proof Taggart knew or had reason to know firearm was stolen | Affirmed; circumstantial evidence (stipulation, possession, conduct, drug context) supported requisite knowledge |
| Prosecutorial/DNA misrepresentation and mistrial request | Prosecutor’s statements were fair argument; defense cross-examination exposed limits of DNA evidence; any misstatements were harmless | Commonwealth misled jury in opening/closing about DNA on gun; request for mistrial or curative instruction should have been granted | Waived (no contemporaneous objection) and, alternatively, harmless given cross-examination, jury instructions, and overwhelming evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chinea, 371 A.2d 944 (Pa. Super. 1977) (minor dating errors on warrant do not necessarily render it facially invalid)
- Commonwealth v. Swint, 389 A.2d 654 (Pa. Super. 1978) (typographical errors by magistrate do not automatically invalidate a warrant)
- Commonwealth v. Conner, 305 A.2d 341 (Pa. Super. 1973) (similar treatment of clerical/magisterial errors in warrant issuance)
- Commonwealth v. Leed, 142 A.3d 20 (Pa. Super. 2016) (collecting authority upholding warrants despite minor defects and distinguishing omissions that threaten Fourth Amendment protections)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 518 A.2d 802 (Pa. 1986) (informant/timeframe omissions distinguishable from absence of probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Ruey, 892 A.2d 802 (Pa. 2006) (explaining common-sense distinction between lack of probable cause and imperfect articulation of same)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (framework for determining knowing, voluntary waiver of counsel on appeal)