Commonwealth v. Garcia
72 A.3d 681
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Miguel Garcia was charged with possession with intent to deliver and related offenses after a controlled buy on Aug. 10, 2010 and a search on Aug. 12, 2010 that produced heroin, a cell phone matching the buy number, ID, and mail linking him to the residence.
- At the preliminary hearing, Officer Rich testified a confidential informant (CI) conducted a prerecorded buy; the CI handed officers the contraband and police later found packets on Garcia and in the residence.
- Garcia moved for broad discovery seeking District Control (DC) numbers and arrest paperwork for prior uses of the CI to test Officer Rich’s claim the CI had been used “25 or 30 times.”
- The trial court narrowed the request, ordering the Commonwealth to produce several DC numbers and paperwork for two entries but prohibited counsel from sharing the documents with Garcia without leave.
- The Commonwealth refused to comply, asserting the order risked revealing the CI’s identity and was effectively a CI-motion circumvention; the trial court dismissed the charges when the Commonwealth refused to disclose.
- The Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court reversed, concluding the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the requested discovery and in dismissing the charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly ordered production of DC numbers and arrest paperwork under Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(B)(2)(a)(iv) | The Commonwealth: trial court abused discretion; disclosure would risk CI identity and defendant failed to show materiality/reasonableness | Garcia: DC numbers/paperwork are material to impeach Officer Rich’s testimony about the CI’s extensive prior use and to test CI veracity | Reversed — Garcia failed to meet the Rule 573 standard (materiality, reasonableness, interests of justice); trial court abused its discretion |
| Whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction for the Commonwealth’s refusal to comply with the discovery order | The Commonwealth: dismissal was improper given non-materiality of the ordered disclosure and CI protection concerns | Garcia: refusal justified dismissal after court ordered disclosure | Reversed — dismissal was improper because the underlying discovery order was erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Snell, 811 A.2d 581 (Pa. Super. 2002) (standard of review for trial court discovery rulings: abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Belenky, 777 A.2d 483 (Pa. Super. 2001) (defendant must show reasonable probability that requested discovery would lead to exculpatory evidence)
- Commonwealth v. King, 932 A.2d 948 (Pa. Super. 2007) (limitations on disclosure of CI-related records under Rule 573)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 630 A.2d 47 (Pa. Super. 1993) (appealability of orders terminating prosecution)