Commonwealth v. Blauser
166 A.3d 428
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Appellant Michael Blauser was convicted after a bench/jury process of defiant trespass under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(b)(1)(i) for remaining on Sheetz property after multiple requests to leave.
- Incident: Blauser spent ~30–45 minutes examining prepaid electronic cards at a Sheetz in DuBois, wrote notes, and requested to photograph cards (denied). Store supervisor and police repeatedly asked him to leave; he refused and was arrested after ~17 minutes outside.
- Defense proffered testimony from Blauser’s sister that he habitually purchases such cards and is a meticulous, slow shopper; the trial court excluded the testimony as irrelevant.
- Appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw, arguing the exclusion of the sister’s testimony was the sole issue but concluding the appeal was frivolous.
- The Superior Court found counsel satisfied Anders technical requirements but held the excluded testimony could support the statutory affirmative defense in § 3503(c)(2) (premises open to public and compliance with lawful conditions), so the appeal was not wholly frivolous.
- Court denied counsel’s withdrawal and remanded for the filing of an advocate’s brief addressing White and § 3503(c)(2); jurisdiction retained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in excluding testimony from Blauser’s sister about his habitual purchase of prepaid cards and slow/ meticulous shopping | Exclusion proper: testimony irrelevant; defendant was lawfully asked to leave and refused | Testimony would show Blauser had legitimate purpose and habit, supporting § 3503(c)(2) defense; not loitering but careful shopping | Exclusion raised a non-frivolous appellate issue. The court denied counsel’s Anders withdrawal and remanded for an advocate’s brief to address the defense and White. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santiago v. Commonwealth, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders requirements and frivolity standard)
- Tukhi v. Commonwealth, 149 A.3d 881 (Pa. Super. 2016) (procedures when reviewing Anders filings)
- White v. Commonwealth, 492 A.2d 32 (Pa. Super. 1985) (defiant trespass reversed where premises open to public and no failure to comply with lawful conditions shown)
- Cook v. Commonwealth, 952 A.2d 594 (Pa. 2008) (relevance is threshold for admissibility under Pa.R.E. 401–402)
- McCoy v. Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1988) (standard for counsel withdrawal and appellate review of frivolous claims)