Com. v. Torres, M.
Com. v. Torres, M. No. 2415 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 17, 2017Background
- Police investigated complaints that Michael Torres ("Torres") used a white custom van parked at 940 E. Russell St. to store and distribute drugs; officers observed Torres meet with Eduardo Borges and exchange money and small baggies.
- Officers conducted two controlled buys using a confidential informant (CI); buys resulted in packages of alleged crack cocaine and marijuana that the CI delivered to police.
- On October 9, 2013, officers executed search warrants for the van and 940 E. Russell St.; they recovered large quantities of packaged drugs, pills, scales, ammunition, two handguns from the van, and currency/identifying materials from the residence linking Torres to the address.
- Torres was tried by jury and convicted of PWID, conspiracy to commit PWID, and firearms offenses; sentenced to 7½ to 20 years.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw; the Superior Court reviewed the record independently and considered three principal challenges: (1) disclosure of CI identity, (2) suppression of evidence/seizure warrants, and (3) sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by denying motion to disclose CI identity | Commonwealth: CI identity may be withheld to protect safety and ongoing usefulness | Torres: CI identity is material and reasonably necessary for defense; disclosure required | Denial affirmed — defendant failed to show materiality or inability to obtain information elsewhere; safety of CI weighed against disclosure |
| Whether warrants/searches lacked probable cause so items should be suppressed | Torres: affidavit did not establish fair probability contraband would be in van or residence | Commonwealth: officer observations, controlled buys, and officer experience supplied probable cause under totality of circumstances | Denial affirmed — magistrate had substantial basis; totality of circumstances (observations + controlled buys) supported probable cause |
| Whether evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession of drugs and weapons | Torres: he didn’t own the van; no direct proof he controlled contraband | Commonwealth: observed him use a key to open van, hand baggies to buyer, recovery of keys, ID, photos, currency at residence — circumstantial proof of dominion and intent | Convictions upheld — circumstantial evidence sufficient to show constructive possession |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (established totality-of-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (probable cause and deference to issuing authority under totality test)
- Commonwealth v. Millner, 888 A.2d 680 (Pa. 2005) (appellate review scope for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Watson, 69 A.3d 605 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Rule 573/confidential informant disclosure standard)
- Commonwealth v. Hritz, 663 A.2d 775 (Pa. Super. 1995) (defendant must show CI possesses material information not obtainable elsewhere)
- Commonwealth v. Bing, 713 A.2d 56 (Pa. 1998) (informant safety is controlling factor for disclosure)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 26 A.3d 1078 (Pa. 2011) (tripartite test for constructive possession)