Commonwealth v. Storey
167 A.3d 750
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- In February 2013, Possinger arranged two heroin purchases from Storey for buyer Donald O’Reilly; Possinger was the only person who met Storey during both transactions. The second batch bore an A.O.N. stamp that Possinger recognized.
- O’Reilly died of a heroin (morphine) overdose on February 14; four empty wax paper bags stamped A.O.N. were found on his person.
- Cell‑tower records placed Possinger near the first transaction and Storey near the second transaction on the relevant dates.
- Storey was convicted by a jury of drug delivery resulting in death (18 Pa.C.S. §2506) and related drug offenses; he received an aggregate 108–276 month sentence.
- Post‑sentence motions were denied; Storey appealed raising challenges including vagueness/strict liability under §2506, insufficiency and weight of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial misconduct, and alleged errors in accomplice‑liability instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Storey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2506 is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Statute clearly proscribes intentional sale/distribution causing another’s death; ordinary person can understand prohibited conduct | §2506’s language is too vague for someone unaware of the eventual victim to know conduct was punishable | Rejected — statute not vague as applied; Kakhankham controls |
| Whether §2506 imposes strict liability | Mens rea exists: intentional sale + at least reckless causation for death | §2506 effectively makes seller strictly liable for any death by an unknown end‑user | Rejected — statute is not strict liability; mens rea requirements upheld |
| Sufficiency of evidence for §2506 conviction | Possinger ID’d Storey; phone records and A.O.N. bags link sale to O’Reilly’s fatal dose; circumstantial evidence sufficient | Storey lacked knowledge of O’Reilly and did not sell directly to him, so causation/intent not proven | Affirmed — viewing evidence favorably to Commonwealth, elements proven beyond reasonable doubt |
| Admission of Possinger’s "bad acts" testimony and lack of cautionary instruction | Testimony was limited; defense didn’t request a cautionary instruction after judge sustained objection | Testimony that Storey had “a lot of customers” was prejudicial and required curative instruction | Waived — defense failed to request cautionary instruction; claim denied |
| Officer Staples’ testimony about phone‑number database and limiting instruction | Testimony was relevant to identify the number and court gave a curative cautionary instruction | Testimony suggested prior law‑enforcement contact and was prejudicial | No abuse of discretion — defense opened the door and judge’s limiting instruction was adequate |
| Prosecutorial remarks bolstering Possinger’s credibility | Comment responsive to defense attack on witness credibility | Misconduct: prosecutor improperly vouched by saying he wouldn’t call the witness if he didn’t believe him | Rejected — comments were permissible response to defense’s attack and not reversible error |
| Jury instruction on accomplice liability (confusion) | Court’s full instruction accurately stated law and tasked jury to decide if witness was accomplice | Instruction contained internally inconsistent lines that confused jury and tainted verdict | Rejected — charge, read as a whole, was clear, accurate, and adequate |
| Weight of the evidence (new trial) | Verdict supported by credible witness ID, corroborative phone data, physical evidence, toxicology | Verdict shocks conscience given lack of direct sale to decedent and uncertainties | Rejected — trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict not against weight of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (void‑for‑vagueness standard for criminal statutes)
- Commonwealth v. Kakhankham, 132 A.3d 986 (Pa. Super. 2015) (interpreting §2506: intentional sale + but‑for causation and sale of heroin satisfies recklessness element)
- Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574 (Pa. Super. 2001) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Stokes, 78 A.3d 644 (Pa. 2013) (standard for weight‑of‑the‑evidence review)