Com. v. Thornton, T.
2087 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- On August 23–24, 2013 police arranged a controlled buy of crack cocaine from Appellant Tyriek Thornton using prerecorded currency; surveillance identified 1109 N. 12th St. as the relevant residence.
- A search-warrant affidavit described the controlled buy, the CS (confidential source) giving prerecorded bills to Thornton, Thornton’s failure to return with drugs, and surveillance showing Thornton enter/exit 1109 N. 12th St.; a warrant issued the same afternoon.
- Shortly after the warrant issued, officers stopped a vehicle with Thornton as a passenger, found marijuana and $1,000 on him (the officers did not immediately compare serial numbers), and arrested him; officers then executed the warrant at the residence.
- At the residence police found an unlocked safe containing a loaded pistol, gloves, ammunition, a men’s North Face jacket with packaging materials (drug paraphernalia) in the same closet, paperwork with Thornton’s name/address, and a photo of Thornton; DNA testing excluded Thornton from the gun/magazine but could not exclude him as a contributor to the inside of a recovered glove.
- Thornton made recorded jail calls referring to the house as his and the recovered pistol as his; the Commonwealth introduced Thornton’s prior aggravated-assault convictions to invoke 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105.
- A jury convicted Thornton of persons not to possess firearms and possession of drug paraphernalia; Thornton’s suppression motion (denying the warrant, claiming staleness, and arguing execution exceeded scope) was denied; Thornton appealed and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Thornton's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of search warrant (probable cause) | Affidavit, viewed under totality, established fair probability prerecorded currency/evidence of theft by deception would be at 1109 N. 12th St. | Warrant insufficient (like Graham) because CS transaction alone didn’t prove legally enforceable obligation or theft by deception | Warrant valid under Gates/Gray totality test; additional corroborating facts distinguished Graham |
| Staleness / continued execution after currency found on Thornton | Warrant issued ~1 hour after events; officers reasonably could not verify serials on the street and had ongoing concern others at the house might destroy evidence | Discovery of the currency on Thornton rendered the warrant stale and police should have compared serials before searching the house | Information was not stale; officers acted reasonably given safety, ongoing surveillance, and risk of destruction of evidence |
| Scope of execution / seizure of gun and paraphernalia (plain view / inevitable discovery) | Items would have been found in a valid search for prerecorded currency; admissible under inevitable discovery (and possibly plain view) | Seizures exceeded warrant scope because the prerecorded currency had already been recovered | Items admissible; trial court correctly applied inevitable discovery to validate the seizures |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession (firearm and paraphernalia) | Circumstantial evidence (residence indicators, jacket in same closet, DNA on glove, jail-call admissions) established Thornton’s constructive possession | No direct physical link: no fingerprints/DNA on the gun; Thornton disputed residency and ownership of items | Evidence sufficient for constructive possession; jury reasonably rejected defense testimony and relied on circumstantial proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Gray, 503 A.2d 921 (Pa. 1986) (adoption of Gates totality test under PA Constitution)
- Commonwealth v. Graham, 596 A.2d 1117 (Pa. 1991) (insufficiency where only evidence was failure to deliver drugs to informant)
- In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073 (Pa. 2013) (scope of appellate review of suppression rulings limited to suppression hearing record)
- Commonwealth v. Gomolekoff, 910 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2006) (staleness requires examination of nature of crime and type of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 57 A.3d 74 (Pa. Super. 2012) (lack of forensic evidence does not defeat circumstantial proof of possession)
- Commonwealth v. Macolino, 469 A.2d 132 (Pa. 1983) (constructive possession may be joint and is a fact-specific inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Sanford, 863 A.2d 428 (Pa. 2004) (sufficiency review considers all evidence admitted at trial, not a diminished record)