Com. v. Thompson, C.
Com. v. Thompson, C. No. 681 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 10, 2017Background
- Police observed Christopher Thompson in a high-crime area; he acted nervously and fled when officers approached.
- Officers pursued, stopped him near an address, discovered an outstanding arrest warrant, arrested him, and searched him incident to arrest; they recovered a bundle (~10 bags) of heroin and his cell phone.
- A cooperating witness, Jack Johnson, testified he had texted and arranged to buy heroin from Thompson; calling the saved contact on Johnson’s phone caused Thompson’s phone to ring.
- Detective John Goshert testified as an expert that the circumstances, interactions, and texts supported an intent to deliver.
- Thompson was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to deliver, possession, paraphernalia, and criminal use of a communication facility; post-sentence motions and a suppression challenge were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of stop/search (suppression) | Police: flight + nervousness in a high-crime area gave reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop | Thompson: initial contact was a mere encounter; subsequent flight was provoked and did not justify stop | Court: flight was unprovoked and, with evasive behavior in a high-crime area, gave reasonable suspicion; suppression denial affirmed |
| Sufficiency — intent to deliver | Commonwealth: expert testimony, witness buy setup, location, and interactions supported intent to deliver | Thompson: prosecution failed to prove intent; expert testimony unreliable | Court: evidence sufficient; credibility issues are weight matters for jury, not sufficiency challenge |
| Sufficiency — criminal use of communication facility | Commonwealth: texts and phone-call linkage established use of a phone to arrange sale | Thompson: text messages not properly authenticated | Court: evidence (saved contact, texts, and ringing phone) was sufficient to prove use of phone to facilitate transaction |
| Weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: jury verdict supported by witness and expert testimony | Thompson: verdict shocks conscience given alleged contradictions and witness credibility problems | Held: trial court did not abuse discretion; jury credibility determinations stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (discussing standard of review for suppression rulings)
- In re J.G., 145 A.3d 1179 (distinguishing encounter, investigative detention, and arrest)
- Commonwealth v. Lyles, 97 A.3d 298 (police approach in public is typically a mere encounter)
- In the Interest of D.M., 781 A.2d 1161 (unprovoked flight in high-crime area can create reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 51 A.3d 895 (nervous, evasive behavior and flight justify investigatory stop)
- Commonwealth v. Little, 879 A.2d 293 (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710 (distinguishing sufficiency and weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Trippett, 932 A.2d 188 (limits on appellate review of weight claims based on credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 863 A.2d 1185 (same)
- Commonwealth v. Hankerson, 118 A.3d 415 (appellate limitation on reassessing witness credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128 (standard for reviewing weight of the evidence claims)