Commonwealth v. Gayle
145 A.3d 188
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Police executed a search warrant at 1139 Butler Street (owned by Appellant's mother) on May 2, 2014 in a narcotics investigation; Officer Brian Burd carried a plastic bin during the search.
- Appellant (Gayle) claimed he had mailed seven screenplays and one novel (total ~1,000 pages) to his brother Albert for safekeeping and that those manuscripts were kept in a bedroom safe at the residence prior to the search.
- Albert testified he placed the writings in the safe before Appellant’s 2013 release; he did not view the safe again until after the May 2014 search and then found it empty.
- Witnesses who observed the search (Baltimore Gayle and Louise Gayle) saw police leave with a plastic bin of papers but could not identify the papers as Appellant’s manuscripts; Inspector Crisafulli and Officer Burd testified that only three pieces of mail and $201 in cash were listed on the inventory.
- Inspector Crisafulli searched the police property room after Appellant’s petition and found no manuscripts; the trial court denied Appellant’s Petition for Return of Property as moot, concluding the Commonwealth did not possess the writings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant made a sufficient initial showing to require return of writings seized under Pa.R.Crim.P. 588 | Appellant argued he stored eight manuscripts in the bedroom safe, police opened the safe during the search, and officers left with a bin of papers—this establishes a prima facie entitlement to return. | Commonwealth argued it does not possess the manuscripts; inventory and property-room search show the writings were never seized, so the petition is moot. | Court held petition is moot because competent evidence showed the Commonwealth never possessed the manuscripts; trial court’s credibility findings for Commonwealth were supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Durham, 9 A.3d 641 (Pa. Super. 2010) (appellate jurisdiction for Pa.R.Crim.P. 588 return-of-property appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Younge, 667 A.2d 739 (Pa. Super. 1995) (jurisdictional reference for return-of-property matters)
- In re One 1988 Toyota Corolla, 675 A.2d 1290 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (claimant must establish entitlement to lawful possession; burden then shifts to Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Wintel, Inc., 829 A.2d 753 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (standard of appellate review for motions for return of property)
- Commonwealth v. Matsinger, 68 A.3d 390 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (motion for return of property is moot if Commonwealth does not possess the property)