Commonwealth v. Brookins
10 A.3d 1251
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2010Background
- Brookins was convicted of PWID, Criminal Conspiracy, and Corrupt Organizations stemming from a drug distribution operation led by McKeiver.
- Wiretap evidence on McKeiver’s phone captured Brookins arranging cocaine sales; Brookins was one of 22 alleged co-conspirators in a single consolidated action.
- Brookins moved for severance and a venue change; the trial court denied both motions, and the case proceeded with several co-defendants.
- Evidence at trial included wiretap transcripts and expert testimony (Kenneth Bellis) about drug terminology and wiretap language; some evidence pertained to co-defendants’ kidnapping/robbery plans.
- Brookins’ codefendants were charged with kidnapping/robbery, but Brookins was not charged with those offenses; joint trial raised concerns about prejudice from admission of that evidence.
- After trial, Brookins was sentenced to four to ten years PWID, plus concurrent terms; the judgment of sentence was vacated and remanded for a new trial due to severance error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of severance was an abuse of discretion | Brookins argues joinder was improper; evidence against others tainted her trial. | The Commonwealth contends evidence was admissible to prove a common enterprise and that severance was unnecessary. | Severance required; trial court erred in denying it. |
| Whether denial of change of venue was an abuse of discretion | Brookins contends Montgomery County was improper for trial given Philadelphia-based conduct. | Commonwealth argues venue was proper under 42 Pa.C.S. § 4551 and Rule 584. | No abuse; denial of venue change affirmed. |
| Whether expert testimony on wiretap language was admissible or prejudicial | Brookins claims Bellis’s testimony prejudiced her by highlighting co-defendants’ conduct not charged against her. | Bellis offered as an expert on drug investigations and wiretaps; testimony supported the Commonwealth’s theory. | Issue moot on remand; due to severance reversal, Exhibit C-47/related testimony not in evidence on retrial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Dozzo, 991 A.2d 898 (Pa. Super. 2010) (joinder/severance standards for multiple offenses/defendants)
- Commonwealth v. Boyle, 733 A.2d 633 (Pa. Super. 1999) (joinder/severance considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Levanduski, 907 A.2d 3 (Pa. Super. 2006) (definitions of judicial discretion and prejudice in severance)
- Commonwealth v. Tolassi, 392 A.2d 750 (Pa. Super. 1978) (factors for severance prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Grillo, 917 A.2d 343 (Pa. Super. 2007) (evidence of another crime prejudicial in multi-defendant trials)
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 703 A.2d 418 (Pa. 1997) (admissibility and separation of evidence in severance analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 543 A.2d 491 (Pa. 1988) (standard for admissibility of other-acts evidence in joint trials)
- Commonwealth v. Bethea, 828 A.2d 1066 (Pa. 2003) (venue and change-of-venue considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2002) (considerations for fair trial and venue)
- Commonwealth v. Baney, 860 A.2d 127 (Pa. Super. 2004) (multicounty offenses; proper venue when several counties involved)
- Commonwealth v. Bradfield, 508 A.2d 568 (Pa. Super. 1986) (venue in multi-offense prosecutions)