Com. v. Torres, W.
Com. v. Torres, W. No. 912 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 24, 2017Background
- On November 11, 2014 a confidential informant (CI) made a controlled $60 buy of crack cocaine; the buy was supervised by Detective McCrady and captured on Lancaster Community Safety Coalition video.
- The CI entered and exited a black Toyota Camry; the recovered substance tested positive for crack cocaine.
- Police obtained still images from the surveillance video; Sergeant Greathouse and Officer Flurry identified Wilfredo Torres as the driver in the images after comparing to a more recent driver’s‑license photo and noting distinctive facial features.
- Torres was earlier connected to the same Toyota Camry during an unrelated October 3, 2014 shooting investigation; he told officers the car belonged to his mother‑in‑law.
- At trial Torres and his mother testified the person in the video was Torres’s father; the jury rejected that testimony and convicted Torres of possession with intent to deliver (35 P.S. § 780‑113(a)(30)).
- Torres was sentenced to 3–23 months’ incarceration plus one year probation on a split sentence; he appealed arguing insufficiency and weight of the evidence. The Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s Rule 1925 opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Torres) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: was evidence sufficient to prove Torres delivered crack? | Surveillance video, CI controlled buy, chain of custody of cocaine, and officer identifications of Torres from stills supported conviction. | Identification was unreliable: stills were grainy; CI didn’t testify; officers were not facial‑recognition experts; alternative ID (father) plausible. | Affirmed: viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor, a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Weight of the evidence: does verdict shock the conscience? | Jury credited Commonwealth witnesses and photographic/video evidence over defense testimony. | Jury verdict was against the weight because ID issues and credibility problems made conviction unjust. | Affirmed: verdict did not shock the conscience; credibility/resolution of conflicts for jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Slocum, 86 A.3d 272 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Meadows, 369 A.2d 1266 (Pa. 1977) (sufficiency test and reasonable inferences)
- Commonwealth v. Ouel, 27 A.3d 1033 (Pa. Super. 2011) (evaluating sufficiency standards)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 858 A.2d 1198 (Pa. Super. 2004) (discussion of reasonable doubt standard)
- Commonwealth v. Whiteman, 485 A.2d 459 (Pa. Super. 1984) (motion for new trial on weight grounds concedes sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554 (Pa. Super. 2006) (weight‑of‑the‑evidence standard)
- Commonwealth v. Sohnleitner, 884 A.2d 307 (Pa. Super. 2005) (discretionary dismissal for late appellate brief under Pa.R.A.P. 2188)