Commonwealth v. Coleman
19 A.3d 1111
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Philadelphia Municipal Court convicted Coleman of resisting arrest and prohibited offensive weapons after suppression motion denied.
- Officer Fisher responded to robbery-in-progress description of two black males in green hoodies and green coats.
- Coleman matched clothing description; he refused to remove hand from pocket and fumbled in pocket during encounter.
- A struggle ensued; officer recovered two knives, including a butterfly knife, from Coleman’s pocket.
- Trial court suppressed none of the evidence; conviction based on resisting arrest and offensive weapon charges.
- Appellant appealed challenging stop, sufficiency of evidence, and weapon definition; Commonwealth cross-appealed on suppression issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | Coleman | Commonwealth | Stop supported by reasonable suspicion; no unlawful seizure |
| Sufficiency of evidence for resisting arrest | Coleman | Commonwealth | Evidence sufficient to sustain resisting arrest conviction |
| Sufficiency of evidence for prohibited offensive weapon | Coleman | Commonwealth | Issue waived; not preserved on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884 (Pa. 2000) (totality-of-circumstances seizure analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Zhahir, 751 A.2d 1153 (Pa. 2000) (suspicious behavior plus hand in pocket justifies frisk)
- Commonwealth v. Carter, 779 A.2d 591 (Pa. Super. 2001) (police approach and questioning from mere encounter)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (mere approach for questions does not constitute seizure)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 836 A.2d 5 (Pa. 2003) (mere approach with questioning not a seizure)