Commonwealth v. Thompson
93 A.3d 478
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- On Dec. 3, 2009 Officer Ellingsworth conducted narcotics surveillance of a convenience‑store parking lot after complaints of drug activity. He observed Thompson (appellant) approach an SUV, enter it briefly, receive cash, retrieve a hidden clear baggie near a fence, toss it into the SUV, and leave.
- Officers stopped both vehicles minutes later. A Ziplock baggie containing >100 prescription pills was recovered from passenger Matthew Furentino; Thompson was found with $2,004 in cash on his person.
- Thompson was charged with possession with intent to deliver (PWID) and related offenses; he moved to suppress evidence and for dismissal under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600; both motions were denied. He was convicted by jury and sentenced to a mandatory 5–10 years under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(2)(ii).
- On appeal Thompson raised suppression, Rule 600 (speedy trial), sufficiency and weight of the evidence, and denial of cross‑examination about the officer’s compensation/experience; the Superior Court affirmed most rulings but vacated the sentence and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on certain Rule 600 delays.
- The court found (1) the temporary detention and subsequent arrest were supported by reasonable suspicion/probable cause based on the observed transaction and quick discovery of the pills; (2) the sufficiency claim failed because the jury could reasonably infer the baggie recovered was the one delivered; (3) the weight claim was waived for failing to preserve; (4) the trial court did not abuse discretion in limiting cross‑examination about officer overtime/compensation under Pa.R.E. 403.
- The mandatory minimum sentence was vacated as illegal under Alleyne because facts elevating the sentencing floor were not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt; the Court remanded for further proceedings including an evidentiary hearing on whether the Commonwealth sought writs to secure Thompson’s presence for trial days the record had labeled “administrative error.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression: was seizure/detention/arrest lawful? | Thompson: police lacked reasonable suspicion for detention and lacked probable cause for arrest. | Commonwealth: surveillance, observed hand‑to‑hand exchange, retrieval of hidden baggie, and timely recovery of pills supplied reasonable suspicion and probable cause. | Court: detention and arrest lawful; evidence need only support reasonable inferences that the recovered bag was the one observed. |
| Rule 600 (speedy trial) — attribution of delays for failure to transfer from custody | Thompson: the two long periods where he was not brought to court were Commonwealth delays because no writs were shown. | Commonwealth/trial court: delays were administrative (court or prison) and certain other periods were excludable; Commonwealth satisfied due diligence overall. | Court: remanded for evidentiary hearing to determine whether Commonwealth sought writs; if not, re‑evaluate Rule 600 computation and due diligence. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for PWID | Thompson: Commonwealth failed to prove the recovered Ziplock was the same bag he tossed; thus no proof of possession/intent. | Commonwealth: contemporaneous observation of exchange, defendant’s large cash, and pills recovered from recipient establish delivery and guilt. | Court: evidence sufficient; jury could reasonably infer bag delivered by Thompson and possession/intent established. |
| Cross‑examination about officer compensation/experience | Thompson: payments/overtime and frequency of testifying show bias and should be admitted to impeach credibility. | Commonwealth: such inquiry has limited probative value and risks confusing/prejudicing the jury. | Court: relevance acknowledged but exclusion proper under Pa.R.E. 403 as the line of inquiry risked undue prejudice and confusion; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walton, 63 A.3d 253 (Pa. Super. 2013) (officer observations insufficient for investigative detention where conduct consistent with innocent activity)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Romero, 673 A.2d 374 (Pa. Super. 1996) (definition of probable cause through the officer’s perspective)
- Commonwealth v. Ramos, 936 A.2d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Rule 600 purpose and due diligence framework)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)