180 A.3d 1256
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- On August 2, 2016, Cornelius was arrested at his apartment for a parole violation; he was wearing shorts with methamphetamine sewn into them.
- He was searched incident to arrest; officers did not find the contraband and warned him to surrender any missed contraband before jail intake.
- Cornelius was transported to Warren County Jail, processed through intake while still wearing the shorts, removed his clothing during booking, and his clothing was stored.
- After arrival, Cornelius told another inmate about meth sewn into his shorts; the inmate alerted staff and, on August 15, jail staff retrieved the shorts and found the meth.
- A jury convicted Cornelius of possession of a controlled substance by an inmate (18 Pa.C.S. § 5123(a.2)) and simple possession; he was sentenced to 14 to 36 months.
- On appeal Cornelius challenged (1) whether he was an “inmate” under § 5123 at the relevant time, (2) sufficiency of the evidence, (3) vagueness/overbreadth of the statute for not defining “prisoner,” and (4) denial of a mistrial after the court mentioned the offense grading.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 5123’s definition of “inmate” includes a person transported/turned over to jail custody for a parole violation | Commonwealth: when Cornelius was surrendered to jail and intake began he was committed to the jail and thus an inmate under § 5123(e) | Cornelius: he was not an “inmate” while still wearing the shorts prior to physical confinement in the institution | Court held Cornelius became an inmate when custody/intake began and thus met the statutory definition |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession by an inmate under § 5123(a.2) | Commonwealth: actual possession on person during intake suffices; circumstantial evidence (his statement to another inmate) supports knowledge | Cornelius: after handcuffing and search he lacked access to the shorts while in custody, so he lacked possession as an inmate | Court held evidence (meth sewn into shorts while he was in custody/intake and his statements) was sufficient to prove possession by an inmate |
| Vagueness/overbreadth for failure to define “prisoner” in § 5123 | Commonwealth: statute’s inmate definition is clear; vagueness claim unnecessary | Cornelius: lack of a definition of “prisoner” renders the statute vague/overbroad | Court deemed the issue moot because it resolved the case under the statute’s definition of “inmate” and did not reach vagueness claim |
| Denial of mistrial after jury was told a charge was a second-degree felony | Commonwealth: trial court’s inadvertent remark did not prejudice defendant; objection was untimely | Cornelius: remark could prompt juror research into sentencing and prejudice the defense; moved for mistrial after close of evidence | Court held motion was waived as untimely; even if considered, no manifest necessity shown and no clear prejudice, so denial was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, [citation="175 A.3d 985"] (Pa. Super. 2017) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, [citation="26 A.3d 1078"] (Pa. 2011) (rules on construing statutes and considering what a statute does not say)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, [citation="109 A.3d 711"] (Pa. Super. 2015) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
- Commonwealth v. Gerald, [citation="47 A.3d 858"] (Pa. Super. 2012) (legislative intent behind inmate contraband statute: absolute abstinence)
- Commonwealth v. Macolino, [citation="469 A.2d 132"] (Pa. 1983) (possession proven by showing actual possession on person)
- Commonwealth v. Judy, [citation="978 A.2d 1015"] (Pa. Super. 2009) (standards for granting a mistrial)
- Commonwealth v. McAndrews, [citation="430 A.2d 1165"] (Pa. 1981) (failure to make timely mistrial motion waives claim)
- Commonwealth v. Kelly, [citation="797 A.2d 925"] (Pa. Super. 2002) (standards for sua sponte mistrial and manifest necessity)