Com. v. Theisen, C.
Com. v. Theisen, C. No. 703 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 4, 2017Background
- Charles Theisen was convicted after a hybrid jury/nonjury trial of multiple robberies, aggravated assaults, theft, and receiving stolen property for incidents in August–October 2014 involving older female victims and a stolen 1994 Buick Century.
- Police located the Buick after an anonymous tip; surveillance observed a man in a Steelers jersey (Theisen) enter the car; he was arrested and had casts on both legs. Victims identified the actor from a police photo array.
- Theisen filed a pretrial motion to suppress in-court identification as stemming from an unduly suggestive photo array; the trial court denied the motion by order without holding a suppression hearing or issuing contemporaneous findings.
- Theisen was sentenced to an aggregate 20½–41 years’ imprisonment plus probation. He objected post-sentencing to (1) denial of the suppression motion without a hearing and (2) admission of a detective’s sentencing testimony as improper victim-impact evidence.
- The Superior Court affirmed: it found Theisen waived the procedural Rule 581 complaint by not timely objecting below and rejected the claim that the detective’s testimony was barred by the victim-impact statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Theisen) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of suppression motion without a hearing violated Pa.R.Crim.P. 581 | Rule 581 requires a hearing and contemporaneous findings; denial without them mandates relief | No hearing was necessary given the limited, facially reviewable photo-array claims; trial court could decide on the papers | Waived for appeal due to failure to timely object/reseek reconsideration; court declined to reach merits |
| Whether sentencing testimony from a non-victim detective violated 42 Pa.C.S. § 9738 (victim-impact restrictions) | Detective was not a statutory "victim"; her testimony was thus prohibited as an improper victim-impact statement | § 9738 does not prohibit non-victims from testifying; detective’s observations were relevant to character/community danger and sentencing factors | Rejected Theisen’s claim; § 9738 does not bar such testimony and no other authority prohibited it |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wamsher, 577 A.2d 595 (Pa. Super. 1990) (rules of criminal procedure are not penal provisions and are construed under Pa.R.Crim.P. 101)
- Commonwealth v. Micklos, 672 A.2d 796 (Pa. Super. 1996) (discusses relief for Rule 581 violations)
- Commonwealth v. Long, 753 A.2d 272 (Pa. Super. 2000) (addresses suppression/hearing requirements under Rule 581)
- Fillmore v. Hill, 665 A.2d 512 (Pa. Super. 1995) (preservation/waiver principles: timely objection required to preserve appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (four-part test for review of discretionary sentencing claims)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (what constitutes a substantial question on appeal from sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standards for discretionary aspects of sentencing review)