Commonwealth v. Penn, 132 A.3d 498

On Jan 28, 2012, Detective Burgunder observed Appellant Daniel Penn run a stop sign, initiated a traffic stop, and saw clear plastic baggies with a tan powder he recognized as heroin in the vehicle; Penn was arrested and charged with PWID and possession.
Jury selection for trial began May 5, 2014; Prospective Juror No. 10 (R.Z.) answered on the questionnaire and in voir dire that she would be more likely to believe police testimony.
R.Z. had substantial law-enforcement experience (casino security, college police department work, U.S. Marshals apprenticeship, police internship) and a boyfriend who is a police officer.
Defense moved to excuse R.Z. for cause; the trial court denied the challenge, so defense used a peremptory to strike her and later exhausted all peremptories after an additional selection round.
At trial the Commonwealth presented only two police officers as witnesses; a jury convicted Penn of PWID and possession and he was sentenced to 7–14 years.
On appeal the court vacated the sentence and remanded for a new trial, holding the trial court abused its discretion by denying the cause challenge to R.Z.; other claims (prosecutor vouching, chain-of-custody sufficiency) were either moot or rejected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in denying cause challenge to juror who said she would be more likely to believe police	Penn: R.Z. admitted bias in favor of police and her law-enforcement ties made her unable to be impartial; denial forced use of a peremptory and exhaustion of challenges, requiring new trial	Commonwealth/trial court: juror said she could follow instructions and be fair; mere prior affiliation/experience does not mandate excusal	Court held abuse of discretion to deny cause challenge; juror’s repeated admissions of inclination to credit police rendered excusal appropriate; conviction vacated and remanded for new trial
Whether prosecutor’s opening statements constituted improper vouching requiring relief	Penn: prosecutor vouched/believed police and called defendant a drug dealer in opening, warranting curative instruction or mistrial	Commonwealth: (not reached on merits because new trial ordered)	Moot due to remand for new trial
Whether evidence was insufficient because chain of custody was not established	Penn: gaps in chain of custody meant lab-tested drugs may not have been those seized	Commonwealth: chain gaps affect weight, not admissibility or sufficiency	Court rejected sufficiency claim; held chain-of-custody gaps go to weight of evidence, not sufficiency

Commonwealth v. Ingber, 531 A.2d 1101 (Pa. 1987) (voir dire purpose and challenge-for-cause standard—juror bias/skepticism test)
Commonwealth v. DeHart, 516 A.2d 656 (Pa. 1986) (trial judge’s discretion in juror qualification reviewed for palpable abuse)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 445 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 1982) (excusal required where juror’s voir dire showed emotional admissions of inability to be impartial)
Commonwealth v. Colon, 299 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 1973) (presumed prejudice when prospective juror has close relationship creating likelihood of bias)
Commonwealth v. Dunston, 437 A.2d 1178 (Pa. 1981) (gaps in chain of custody affect weight, not admissibility)
Commonwealth v. Free, 902 A.2d 565 (Pa. Super. 2006) (chain-of-custody issues go to weight and are not grounds for dismissal on due-process sufficiency grounds)
Commonwealth v. Hale, 85 A.3d 570 (Pa. Super. 2014) (distinguishable—addressed claimed presumptive prejudice from prior prosecutor affiliation rather than juror admissions of bias)