Com. v. Vance, S.
Com. v. Vance, S. No. 261 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- On Feb. 25, 2009, Philadelphia police used a confidential informant (CI) to make a $20 prerecorded controlled buy at 3544 N. 5th St.; the CI returned with four clear packets of crack-cocaine.
- Officers executed a search warrant shortly thereafter. Santiago (co-defendant) answered the door; police secured Santiago, Appellant Stacey Vance, and a third person.
- Police recovered $75 (including the $20 prerecorded bill) and a marijuana cigarette on Vance; Santiago had two clear crack packets on his person. An additional $54 was later found on Vance during processing.
- Hidden in the residence officers found 10 crack packets in a hollowed D battery and 57 identical crack packets in a hollow kitchen table leg.
- Vance said he did not live in the house (lived across the street); police surveillance had not observed Vance entering/exiting the residence in prior checks. Vance was tried by bench and convicted of PWID, conspiracy to commit PWID, and possession.
- On appeal (after PCRA reinstatement of appellate rights), Vance challenged sufficiency of the evidence for those convictions; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for PWID (intent to deliver) | Commonwealth: Vance constructively possessed drugs and had intent to deliver — marked buy money on Vance, division of labor with Santiago, hidden stashes, packaging and operational layout | Vance: He was merely present; no identical narcotics on his person; buy money could have been transferred innocently | Court: Affirmed — circumstantial evidence (marked money, proximity to stashes, division of labor, co-conspirator conduct) supports PWID conviction |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession (knowing possession) | Commonwealth: Vance knowingly possessed proceeds and had access/joint control of hidden caches; marijuana cigarette found on him | Vance: No narcotics on his person; presence alone is insufficient | Court: Affirmed — constructive (joint) possession proven by proximity, equal access, and co-conspirator relationship |
| Sufficiency of evidence for criminal conspiracy to commit PWID | Commonwealth: Agreement and shared intent can be inferred from division of labor, association with Santiago, participation in sale (receipt of marked money), and hidden stash scheme | Vance: Denied participation; claimed mere presence and explained money transfer benignly | Court: Affirmed — totality of circumstances (association, knowledge, participation, overt acts by coconspirator) supports conspiracy conviction |
| Whether alternative innocent explanations undermine convictions | Commonwealth: Credibility and weight for inferences belong to factfinder; alternative explanations do not negate sufficiency | Vance: Marked money and found cash could have innocent explanations; his not fleeing shows innocence | Court: Affirmed — alternative inferences do not defeat sufficiency and failure to flee is equivocal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Vargas, 108 A.3d 858 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014) (presence vs. active participation—context can show active role)
- Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review and deference to factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013) (definition and application of constructive possession)
- Commonwealth v. Haskins, 677 A.2d 328 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996) (constructive possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Valette, 613 A.2d 548 (Pa. 1992) (mere presence insufficient; joint control in area of access supports constructive possession)
- Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 67 A.3d 19 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013) (elements and proof of criminal conspiracy)
- Commonwealth v. Geiger, 944 A.2d 85 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) (imputation of coconspirator acts once conspiracy established)
- Commonwealth v. Bricker, 882 A.2d 1008 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (overt act in conspiracy need not be committed by defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 819 A.2d 92 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003) (factors forming a web of evidence for conspiracy: association, knowledge, presence, participation)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 33 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) (elements of PWID offense)
- Commonwealth v. $6,425.00 Seized from Esquilin, 880 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2005) (division of labor between money-holder and drug-holder in drug operations)
- Commonwealth v. Hanford, 937 A.2d 1094 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (failure to flee is ambiguous and not dispositive of guilt)