Commonwealth v. Cole
167 A.3d 49
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Cornell Anthony Cole was tried with co-defendants for a 2013 multi‑county string of commercial burglaries; he was convicted of burglary and conspiracy for four incidents and acquitted on other counts. He received an aggregate 80–180 month sentence and appealed.
- Prosecution relied heavily on cell‑phone/GPS location data, ROPE (Howard County, MD) surveillance observations, and forensic paint comparisons (paint on a crowbar said to be consistent with scene paint).
- Defense moved to sever offenses and co‑defendants, suppress ROPE observations and cell‑tracking evidence (arguing MPJA and Wiretap Act violations), exclude prior bad‑acts evidence, and raised Rule 600 (speedy trial) and prosecutorial misconduct claims; the trial court denied relief on all grounds.
- On suppression, the court found (and the appellate court accepted) that Maryland ROPE officers lawfully surveilled and obtained tracking orders in Maryland, coordinated with Pennsylvania detectives, and did not effectuate out‑of‑state arrests; no suppression was warranted under MPJA or Wiretap Act given the circumstances.
- The appellate court affirmed: severance denied (joinder appropriate given common MO and identity evidence); suppression denied (no MPJA violation meriting suppression; Maryland tracking order and facts did not require Pennsylvania duplicate order); prior‑acts evidence admissible as probative of MO/identity; Rule 600 and prosecutorial‑misconduct claims waived or without merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cole) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance of multiple burglary offenses | Joinder of eight burglaries prejudiced Cole; different witnesses for each incident created confusion | Burglaries formed a common multi‑month scheme (MO, identity, GPS links); evidence admissible cross‑trials | Denied — joinder appropriate; evidence would be admissible in separate trials; jury could separate counts (mixed verdict supports no prejudice) |
| Severance of co‑defendants | Co‑defendants’ defenses antagonistic; some not charged in every burglary | Preference for joint conspiracy trials; Cole failed to show actual antagonism | Denied — no sufficient showing of antagonistic defenses to warrant severance |
| Suppression — ROPE observations (MPJA) | Maryland officers observed and tracked suspects in PA in violation of MPJA; observations and GPS should be suppressed | ROPE merely surveilled, did not arrest/detain; coordinated with PA detectives; MPJA not breached in way requiring suppression | Denied — no abuse; investigative observations outside jurisdiction without exercise of police powers did not justify suppression; Bradley inapposite and not controlling |
| Suppression — live ping/historical phone records (Wiretap Act) | Live tracking and historical records required PA order/warrant under Wiretap Act; none obtained by PA courts | Maryland court orders and lawful MD procedures authorized tracking; evidence shared with PA investigators; no showing of intentional circumvention or lower MD standards | Denied — court assumed MD order lawful and held no requirement for duplicate PA order under facts; live‑tracking not suppressed; historical records argument largely waived on appeal |
| Admission of prior bad acts | Prior traffic stops and Maryland Cindy’s Skylight burglary were overly prejudicial and of little probative value | Evidence probative of identity, MO, preparation, plan; circumstantial case required such proof; limiting/curative instructions given | Admitted — trial court did not abuse discretion; probative value outweighed prejudice; jury instruction limited use to identity/MO |
| Rule 600 (speedy trial) | Multiple delays attributable to Commonwealth exceeded 365 days; motion to dismiss warranted | Commonwealth exercised due diligence; exclusions account for delays; no violation | Denied — appellant failed to identify specific errors in trial court’s exclusion attributions; issue waived/insufficiently developed |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / mistrial (opening, closings, witness testimony) | Prosecutor referenced prior bad acts in opening and overstated expert paint testimony in closing; witnesses implied prior investigation status — requested mistrials | Remarks were limited, curative instructions were given, objections were late or not contemporaneous; jury verdict and instructions show no irreparable prejudice | Denied — most objections waived for lack of contemporaneous objection; where preserved, court gave curative instruction and no unfair prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. O’Neil, 108 A.3d 900 (Pa. Super. 2015) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for severance denials)
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 703 A.2d 418 (Pa. 1997) (three‑part test for joinder/severance of offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Peters, 915 A.2d 1213 (Pa. Super. 2007) (MPJA interpretation and liberal construction to effectuate public safety)
- Commonwealth v. Proetto, 771 A.2d 823 (Pa. Super. 2001) (Wiretap Act defines interception as contemporaneous acquisition)
- Commonwealth v. Spangler, 809 A.2d 234 (Pa. 2002) (Wiretap Act strict construction and privacy emphasis)
- Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083 (Pa. 2010) (Rule 600 standard; due diligence inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693 (Pa. 2012) (Rule 600 and appellate review standards)
- Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (Rule 404(b) balancing probative value vs. prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. D’Amato, 526 A.2d 300 (Pa. 1987) (prosecutorial remark reversible only if it creates fixed bias preventing objective weighing of evidence)