Commonwealth v. Sauers
159 A.3d 1
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Detective used proprietary Ares Round-up peer-to-peer software to identify an IP/username and downloaded files he alleged were child pornography; a warrant led to seizure of Appellant’s Dell laptop.
- Detective forensically examined the laptop and recovered evidence including ten files downloaded directly and 87 files found in unallocated space; Appellant was charged on two dockets (10 dissemination/possession counts + communications-facility; separate 87 possession counts). Cases were joined.
- A jury convicted Appellant on the first docket (11 counts) and acquitted him on the 87-count companion docket. Trial court sentenced Appellant to 60–120 months and designated him a Tier III sex offender with lifetime SORNA registration.
- Appellant raised numerous claims on appeal: evidentiary rulings (court previewed only sample images/videos), refusal to produce/allow testing of Commonwealth’s proprietary Ares software, sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions on possession, denial of individual voir dire, and sentencing abuses (including SORNA designation).
- The Superior Court affirmed convictions, rejected most claims (finding waiver or lack of merit), but vacated the lifetime SORNA registration portion and remanded for resentencing under Lutz-Morrison because Appellant is a first-time offender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Sauers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of photos/videos without full court preview | Trial court properly previewed a sample, balanced probative v. prejudicial, and the Commonwealth may present non-cumulative images to prove each offense | Trial court should have reviewed all images/videos before jury exposure; full preview required and admission was unduly prejudicial | Preview of a sample and in-trial handling was proper; no abuse of discretion; remaining evidence objection waived; convictions stand |
| Disclosure/testing of proprietary Ares software | Not required to disclose investigatory methods or proprietary tools; discovery rules do not compel software production | Failure to allow forensic evaluation denied confrontation and a fair trial; sought testing of the modified Ares Round-up | Claim waived for failure to preserve properly; even on merits, trial court found discovery and expert access sufficient; no relief |
| Sufficiency of evidence (possession/dissemination) | Commonwealth presented direct evidence (Detective downloaded files from IP, five complete files, forensic artifacts showing use/download/share) | Partial downloads and files in unallocated space insufficient to prove possession/dissemination | Evidence was sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to verdict winner; Husmann/Flyer distinguished; convictions affirmed |
| Jury instruction on "possession" | Instruction tracked Pennsylvania law (including Diodoro rationale that viewing/clicking can constitute control) | Needed an intent-to-exercise-control element (proposed out-of-jurisdiction instruction) | No abuse; trial court’s instruction adequate, accurate, and appropriate for computer context |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Diodoro, 970 A.2d 1100 (Pa. 2009) (interpretation of “possesses or controls” in child-porn statute; viewing/clicking can indicate control)
- Commonwealth v. Jarowecki, 985 A.2d 955 (Pa. 2009) (each image can constitute a separate offense under Section 6312)
- Commonwealth v. Hicks, 91 A.3d 47 (Pa. 2014) (probative v. prejudicial balancing generally left to trial court)
- Commonwealth v. Flamer, 53 A.3d 82 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Cunningham, 694 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2012) (district court erred by admitting pornographic evidence without personally viewing challenged excerpts)
- United States v. Husmann, 765 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2014) (making files available in a shared folder alone is insufficient to prove distribution absent evidence another downloaded them)
- United States v. Flyer, 633 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2011) (files found only in unallocated space insufficient to prove possession without evidence defendant knew of them)
- Commonwealth v. Lutz-Morrison, 143 A.3d 891 (Pa. 2016) (SORNA application implicates recidivist philosophy; affects lifetime registration for first-time offenders)