Com. v. Uphold, R.
Com. v. Uphold, R. No. 542 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 13, 2017Background
- Charges (possession with intent to deliver, delivery, possession of controlled substance) arose from an alleged two-stage drug transaction on June 1, 2010; affidavit of probable cause filed May 26, 2015 (near statute of limitations).
- Affidavit alleged an undercover officer and a confidential informant (CI) met Uphold; officer gave $200 (CI present), officer returned alone ~30 minutes later and purchased ten baggies of heroin. Uphold denies involvement; CI was the only non-law-enforcement witness.
- Defense first requested CI identity in August 2015; Commonwealth provided other discovery but withheld CI identity. Defense renewed the request March 28, 2016; court held an in camera conference March 30.
- Trial court ordered the Commonwealth to disclose the CI’s name and whereabouts on March 31, 2016 and warned that refusal would result in dismissal; the Commonwealth refused and the court dismissed the charges the same day.
- Commonwealth appealed; Superior Court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed dismissal, agreeing that the CI was material, the request was reasonable, disclosure was in the interests of justice under Roviaro balancing, and dismissal was an appropriate remedy when the government refuses a court-ordered disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Uphold) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in ordering disclosure of CI identity | CI present only for money exchange, not drug delivery; CI identity not material to charged delivery offense | CI was sole non‑law‑enforcement witness to the transaction’s first stage and material to identity/entrapment defense | Trial court did not err: CI was material, request reasonable, and disclosure favored in Roviaro balancing |
| Whether dismissal was an appropriate remedy for Commonwealth’s refusal to disclose after court order | Court should impose a lesser sanction; dismissal was excessive | Court order was ignored; Roviaro and Pennsylvania precedent permit dismissal when government refuses disclosure | Dismissal affirmed as within court’s discretion and consistent with precedent |
| Timeliness / procedural compliance of defense’s motion to compel | (Commonwealth) Motion was untimely; defendant waived right to compel by late filing under Pa.R.Crim.P. 579/573 | (Defendant) Continuing duty to disclose; prior notice and in‑camera hearing cured any timing concerns | Court considered timeliness but held continuing disclosure obligation and fact pattern warranted disclosure; timeliness objection not decisive |
| Whether alternative remedies were preserved | Commonwealth contends it should have been allowed to propose alternatives below | Defendant sought disclosure and court ordered it; Commonwealth did not request alternative sanctions in trial court | Superior Court declined to consider alternative-remedy argument as waived because not raised below |
Key Cases Cited
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (U.S. 1957) (balancing test for disclosure of informant identity)
- Commonwealth v. Jordan, 125 A.3d 55 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for informant-disclosure rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Marsh, 997 A.2d 318 (Pa. 2010) (trial court may dismiss when government withholds informant identity after order)
- Commonwealth v. Carter, 233 A.2d 284 (Pa. 1967) (same rule permitting dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Ross, 623 A.2d 827 (Pa. Super. 1993) (three-part test: materiality, reasonableness, interests of justice; apply Roviaro balancing)