Commonwealth v. Johnson
146 A.3d 1271
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- On Sept. 3, 2009, Philadelphia police encountered Earl Johnson in a building lobby; after yelling at officers he produced a bundle of mail that contained a small bag of marijuana and was arrested.
- Johnson was tried in Municipal Court on July 28, 2011; he filed a pretrial motion to suppress which the Municipal Court denied and was convicted of possession of a small amount of marijuana.
- Johnson appealed to the Court of Common Pleas (CCP) by requesting a trial de novo (Pa. R. Crim. P. 1006), not a writ of certiorari.
- Following a de novo bench trial on Nov. 10, 2014, the CCP found him guilty and sentenced him to time served; he did not file post-trial/post-sentence motions.
- Johnson appealed to the Superior Court arguing the Municipal Court erred in denying his suppression motion (claiming the officers conducted an investigative detention without reasonable suspicion).
- The Superior Court held the suppression issue was waived because Johnson chose a trial de novo (which generally precludes relitigation of suppression rulings) and failed to seek CCP review of the Municipal Court suppression ruling via a post-trial motion for a new trial under Phila. Co. Crim. Div. Rule 630(H).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Municipal Court erred in denying the motion to suppress because Johnson was subject to an investigative detention unsupported by reasonable suspicion | Johnson: detention was investigative and lacked reasonable suspicion; evidence (marijuana) should be suppressed | Commonwealth/Municipal Court/CCP: suppression issue not preserved on appeal because Johnson elected a trial de novo and did not pursue CCP review via a motion for new trial under local rule 630(H) | Waived. Superior Court affirmed judgment of sentence because Johnson failed to preserve the suppression claim for appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Best, 120 A.3d 329 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Coleman, 19 A.3d 1111 (Pa. Super. 2011) (distinguishing trial de novo from certiorari review of Municipal Court)
- Commonwealth v. Menezes, 871 A.2d 204 (Pa. Super. 2005) (trial de novo gives new trial without reference to Municipal Court record)
- Commonwealth v. Douglass, 701 A.2d 1376 (Pa. Super. 1997) (defendant may not relitigate suppression issues at trial de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Dobson, 405 A.2d 910 (Pa. 1979) (same rule barring relitigation of suppression at de novo trial)
- Commonwealth v. Beaufort, 112 A.3d 1267 (Pa. Super. 2015) (procedural exclusivity of appeal options from Municipal Court)