Commonwealth v. Kinard
95 A.3d 279
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Confidential informant bought crack from Morrison; police obtained a warrant to search Morrison's home in Upper Darby, PA.
- June 17, 2010, ten officers executed the warrant; Kinard, Morrison's cousin, was the only person present and was searched, with $180 and two cell phones recovered.
- Inside the home, police found 18 bags of marijuana and a bag containing cocaine; mail to Morrison and drug paraphernalia (new bags) were recovered; Morrison and Kinard were charged with PWID and conspiracy.
- Morrison testified that Kinard supplied drugs and that she sold drugs for him to make up a $20 shortfall; she also described coded street terms and Kinard's role in the operation.
- Before trial, the Commonwealth sought to admit 404(b) evidence of prison phone calls by Kinard; the court granted in part and denied Morrison-related prior-sales testimony; recordings were admitted for common scheme and absence of mistake.
- Kinard was convicted by a jury of PWID and two conspiracy counts; he received a sentence of 48–96 months plus 5 years' probation, and timely appellate review followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prison phone-call recordings | Kinard argues 404(b) evidence was improper and prejudicial. | Kinard contends calls were not germane to material issues and invaded innocence. | Admissible for common scheme and absence of mistake; probative value outweighed prejudice. |
| Admission of expert decoding of drug slang | Calls were not specialized knowledge beyond lay understanding and could bolster Morrison. | Expert decoding was necessary to understand the language and was not cumulative. | Properly admitted; decoder expert aided the jury in interpreting coded language. |
| Brady violation regarding Morrison's leniency | Prosecution failed to disclose Morrison's plea negotiations or favorable treatment. | No proven deal; Morrison denied promises; defense had opportunity to probe credibility. | No Brady violation; no evidence of a deal shown; disclosure not warranted. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession and conspiracy | Kinard was not clearly connected to the drugs; constructive possession could not be shown beyond Morrison's testimony. | Totality of circumstances showed Kinard's presence and control; conspiracy established by Morrison's testimony. | Sufficient evidence to support both PWID constructive possession and conspiracy convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Spruill, 480 Pa. 601 (Pa. 1978) (limits on other acts evidence to prevent propensity inference)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 586 Pa. 553 (Pa. 2006) (probative value of evidence and 402/404 considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Aguado, 760 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2000) (intent under Rule 404(b) must grow from prior facts)
- Commonwealth v. Doyen, 848 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Super. 2004) (coded language proper subject of expert testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Vitale, 664 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 1995) (narrow interpretation of expert decoding in narcotics cases)
- Commonwealth v. LaCava, 666 A.2d 221 (Pa. 1995) (limiting instruction can cure admissibility issues)
- Commonwealth v. Weakley, 972 A.2d 1182 (Pa. Super. 2009) (balancing probative value and prejudice under 404(b)(2))
- Commonwealth v. Gordon, 652 A.2d 317 (Pa. Super. 1994) (distinctiveness requirement for common plan or scheme)
- Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 577 Pa. 421 (Pa. 2004) (absence of mistake or accident exception in 404(b))
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 611 Pa. 381 (Pa. 2011) (constructive possession framework and joint possession)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426 (Pa. Super. 2012) (totality of circumstances sufficient for constructive possession)
- Commonwealth v. Bartholomew, 70 A.3d 849 (Pa. Super. 2013) (conspiracy evidence framework and overt acts may be by co-conspirator)