Commonwealth v. Benson
10 A.3d 1268
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2010Background
- Benson was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of burglary, robbery, and related offenses, with merged judgments for certain offenses and merged sentencing on others.
- The victim, Theresa Wisniewski, a 77-year-old, was assaulted in her Montgomeryville home during a January 15, 2008 incident involving theft of jewelry, cash, a purse, a pistol, and a sandwich, totaling about $2,400.
- The pistol was later found in a Philadelphia residence; the stolen theater system was recovered via items linked to Benson.
- At sentencing (July 6, 2009), the court imposed a 10–20 year term for burglary (mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9714(a)(1)), a 3–10 year term for robbery, and a 1.5–3 year term for theft, with certain mergers for sentencing purposes.
- On July 16, 2009, Benson filed post-sentence motions; the court amended the robbery sentence to 3–7 years; others remained denied on November 17, 2009.
- Benson appeals the suppression ruling regarding phone records, the exclusion of his cross-examination of a police detective about a post-arrest statement, and the legality of his robbery/theft sentences under merger rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of telephone records from the April 2008 search | Benson contends records were improperly obtained due to warrant issues | Commonwealth asserts no legitimate privacy interest; beauford/DeJohn analysis supports no suppression | Suppression denied; no legitimate privacy interest; clerical defect not prejudicial |
| Admissibility of Benson's post-arrest statement during cross-examination | Defense sought to cross-examine about contents of the statement | Statement admissible only as substantive under Murphy was improper | Trial court did not abuse discretion; Murphy bars this cross-examination |
| Sentencing merger under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(d) related to burglary and robbery | Robbery and burglary should merge under merger doctrine | Evidence showed distinct offenses; robbery a distinct offense after burglary | Robbery and burglary did not merge; consecutive sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Holton, 906 A.2d 1246 (Pa.Super. 2006) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; appellate review of facts and inferences)
- Commonwealth v. Beauford, 475 A.2d 783 (Pa.Super. 1984) (privacy in telephone records under PA Constitution; Beauford adopts Beauford reasoning over Smith for third-party bills)
- Commonwealth v. Murphy, 493 Pa. 35 (Pa. 1981) (self-serving, arrest-time statements are generally inadmissible as hearsay; cross-examination limits)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (U.S. 1979) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in numbers dialed on phone (federal standard))
- Commonwealth v. DeJohn, 403 A.2d 1283 (Pa. 1979) (broad PA privacy considerations; supports Beauford framework)