Commonwealth v. Harvard
64 A.3d 690
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Harvard was convicted at a September 2010 jury trial of multiple robberies and related offenses from June–July 2008, leading to aggregate sentences including a 25-year mandatory minimum and additional terms; trial court denied post-sentence motions challenging the sentence and weight of the evidence.
- Police used a key fob to trigger a parked vehicle’s lights during a suppression dispute linked to a home-invasion arrest at 125 Bonvue Street; affidavit relied on surveillance, mail records, and officer observations connecting Harvard to the address and vehicle.
- Harvard moved to suppress evidence obtained at 125 Bonvue Street, challenging the warrant and the acquisition of evidence via a purported illegal search (key-fob actuation) and seeking suppression of items seized outside the warrant.
- Questions on the sufficiency of the search-warrant affidavit focused on whether the affidavit disclosed the investigative techniques linking Harvard to 125 Bonvue; issues included whether that information was properly described within the four corners of the affidavit.
- The appellate court upheld the suppression ruling and rejected Harvard’s challenges to the search, the plain-view seizure, constructive possession of the firearm, trial-verdict weight, and the open-court requirement for the firearm-possession verdict, affirming the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of key fob use as search | Harvard | Harvard contends the key fob activation was an illegal search tainting the warrant | No Fourth Amendment violation; not a search. |
| Affidavit sufficiency—investigative techniques | Harvard | Hawkins/Torres standards require a substantial basis for probable cause; lack of disclosed technique fails | Affidavit sufficient; failure to disclose technique does not undermine probable cause. |
| Plain-view seizure outside warrant | Harvard | Items seized not listed but plainly connected to robberies; plain-view justified | Seizure upheld under plain-view doctrine. |
| Constructive possession of firearm; on-record finding | Harvard | Evidence shows control via residence and involvement in robberies; sufficient for possession; on-record finding not required for sentence validity | Sufficiency established; no reversal for lack of on-record finding. |
| Weight of the evidence and sentencing discretion | Harvard | Discretionary judgment supported by nature of offenses and rehabilitative considerations | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 553 Pa. 76 (Pa. 1998) (standing to challenge searches; possessory interest)
- Commonwealth v. Torres, 564 Pa. 86 (Pa. 2001) (probable cause; totality of the circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Dona, 393 Pa. Super. 363 (Pa. Super. 1990) (plain-view seizure of items not listed in warrant)
- Commonwealth v. Hembree, 751 A.2d 202 (Pa. Super. 2000) (verdicts need not be read in open court in non-jury trials)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 594 Pa. 319 (Pa. 2007) (probable cause and reliability in warrant affidavits)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 784 A.2d 182 (Pa. Super. 2001) (probable cause review standards; four corners of affidavit)
- Commonwealth v. Gutierrez, 969 A.2d 584 (Pa. Super. 2009) (constructive possession; ability and intent)
- Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884 (Pa. Super. 2008) (consecutive sentences and third-strike discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 47 A.3d 155 (Pa. Super. 2012) (weight-of-the-evidence standard; discretion)