Commonwealth v. Taylor
33 A.3d 1283
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellant Donte Taylor was convicted at bench trial of two counts of possession with intent to deliver and two counts of possession of a controlled substance by a person not registered to do so; sentence May 19, 2010.
- Suppression motion sought to suppress physical evidence and statements; denied after a February 24, 2010 hearing; notes of testimony incorporated.
- On July 2, 2006, undercover Pittsburgh police observed Taylor on Creswell Street; he held a potato chip bag, then discarded it when approached.
- Officers recovered 68 bags of crack cocaine and 55 bags of heroin from the potato chip bag; rice was found inside, purportedly used to absorb moisture and protect heroin.
- Expert Detective Scarpine testified the packaging and circumstances indicated possession with intent to deliver; Taylor testified Ernest Turner handed him the bag and that he did not intend to deliver or sell.
- Appellant was arrested; searched, yielding $127 and a cell phone; no drug paraphernalia found; trial court denied suppression, and judgments of sentence followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was suppression proper for forcibly abandoned evidence? | Taylor argues illegal detention tainted abandonment. | State contends no seizure occurred prior to abandonment; abandonment voluntary. | suppression denied; no illegal seizure found; abandonment voluntary. |
| Did information add a new element requiring proof at trial? | Taylor claims prior-drug convictions alleged as elements must be proven. | Commonwealth argues prior convictions are not statutory elements; information provides notice only. | information did not add elements; convictions not required beyond statute. |
| Was there sufficient evidence of intent to deliver? | Taylor contends lack of proof of intent to deliver. | Commonwealth presented factors and expert testimony showing intent to deliver. | sufficient evidence supported intent to deliver; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cauley, 10 A.3d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for suppression evidence; bound by trial findings)
- Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426, 826 A.2d 831 (2003) (illegality of prior conduct taints seizure before abandonment)
- Commonwealth v. Shoatz, 469 Pa. 545, 366 A.2d 1216 (1976) (initial illegality cannot be used to claim voluntary abandonment)
- Commonwealth v. Matos, 543 Pa. 449, 672 A.2d 769 (1996) (defining seizure under Fourth Amendment; free to leave)
- Commonwealth v. Pizarro, Pa. Super. 723 A.2d 675 (1998) (police routine patrol not coercive to compel abandonment)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 313 A.2d 300 (Pa. Super. 1973) (indictment specificity governs required proof of elements)
- Commonwealth v. Madison, 397 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 1979) (distinctions for specificity in charging, burglary context)
- Commonwealth v. Kisner, 736 A.2d 672 (Pa. Super. 1999) (common-sense reading of information; notice vs. element creation)
- Commonwealth v. Badman, 580 A.2d 1367 (Pa. Super. 1990) (read information in a common-sense manner; avoid overly technical parsing)
- Commonwealth v. Ramos, 573 A.2d 1027 (Pa. Super. 1990) (consideration of surrounding facts; relevance to intent analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Yasipour, 957 A.2d 734 (Pa. Super. 2008) (circumstantial evidence admissible to prove intent to deliver)
- Commonwealth v. Duncan, 932 A.2d 226 (Pa. Super. 2007) (sufficiency standard: reasonable doubt; verdict-winner view)
- Commonwealth v. Brewer, 876 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Super. 2005) (sufficiency requires elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Hartle, 894 A.2d 800 (Pa. Super. 2006) (finder of fact may believe all, some, or none of the evidence)