Commonwealth v. Koch
2011 Pa. Super. 201
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Amy N. Koch appeals a July 20, 2010 judgment of sentence: 23 months probation after a PWID conviction (marijuana) and simple possession as an accomplice; court remands for a new trial.
- Confidential informant alerted police that Norman Koch (a/k/a Matt Koch) was selling cocaine and resided with Appellant and Dallas Conrad at Aeronca Street, North Middleton Township.
- Police conducted two trash pulls at the residence, yielding cocaine and marijuana residues.
- A search warrant was executed March 25, 2009; Appellant, Norman Koch, and Dallas Conrad were present; numerous drug-related items were found in the master bedroom and common areas.
- Cell phones recovered; 13 drug-related text messages were allegedly identified and transcribed by Detective Lively; issues were raised about authentication and hearsay.
- Jury found Appellant guilty as an accomplice on PWID and possession; conspiracy acquittal; issues raised on sufficiency and admissibility; appeal followed with Rule 1925 statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication of text messages and transcripts | Koch argues messages were not authenticated and author cannot be ascertained | Commonwealth relied on phone ownership and proximity; author not necessarily Koch | Text messages improperly authenticated; admission error |
| Sufficiency of evidence for PWID and possession | Text messages (sender unknowable) plus absence of direct possession negate elements | Other physical evidence (drugs, paraphernalia, cash) supports possession with intent to deliver | Sufficiency established; jury could infer PWID and possession with intent to deliver from total evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 523 Pa. 577, 568 A.2d 600 (1989) (Pa. 1989) (sufficiency review standard; cannot reweigh evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Reece, 437 Pa. 422, 263 A.2d 463 (1970) (Pa. 1970) (living in house not a crime; constructive possession framework)
- In the Interest of F.P., a Minor, 878 A.2d 91 (Pa.Super.2005) (Pa.Super. 2005) (authentication of electronic communications case-by-case; not inherently unreliable)
- Commonwealth v. Bull, 422 Pa.Super. 67, 618 A.2d 1019 (1993) (Pa.Super.1993) (expert testimony admissible to interpret possession intent with paraphernalia)
- Commonwealth v. Thornton, 494 Pa. 260, 481 A.2d 248 (1981) (Pa. 1981) (harmless error standard for evidentiary errors in criminal trials)