Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 141 A.3d 523

On Oct. 31, 2014, Jose Rodriguez, on parole supervision, was directed to provide a urine sample to Agent Zane McGowan.
Rodriguez handed McGowan a cup of clear liquid that looked like water, had no urine odor, and registered ~70°F on the cup’s temperature indicator (urine typically ~90°F).
McGowan tested that first sample; it was negative for controlled substances. He did not chemically test the liquid to confirm it was urine.
Within about half an hour Rodriguez provided a second sample, which tested positive for THC; Rodriguez admitted marijuana use and was arrested.
Rodriguez was charged under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7509(b) (use or attempt to use drug-free urine to evade drug testing), convicted after a non-jury trial, and sentenced (no additional penalty). He appealed, arguing the Commonwealth failed to prove the substance was urine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7509(b) for using "drug-free urine" to evade testing	Commonwealth: evidence that defendant presented a sample as urine that tested negative and later provided a positive sample supports conviction	Rodriguez: Commonwealth failed to prove the liquid presented was actually urine; proof only showed a liquid, not urine beyond a reasonable doubt	Court affirmed: statute covers any liquid presented as urine to cause deceitful test results; circumstantial evidence (appearance, temp, negative then positive second sample) sufficient to convict

Commonwealth v. Tarrach, 42 A.3d 342 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for sufficiency review; circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. 2008) (requirements for specificity in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statements and sufficiency principles)
Commonwealth v. Mohamud, 15 A.3d 80 (Pa. Super. 2010) (statutory construction principles)
Commonwealth v. Andre, 17 A.3d 951 (Pa. Super. 2011) (waiver analysis under Rule 1925)