Commonwealth v. Torres
177 A.3d 263
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Aug. 13, 2013 Officer Barr stopped a BMW driven by Eric Torres for a defective brake light; Torres fled, crashed the car, and ran.
- Torres was apprehended after a struggle inside a grocery store; during the struggle a .45 Glock discharged and Officer Davies was shot and seriously injured.
- Police executed warrants that day: searches of Torres’s home (401 W. Raymond St.) and two vehicles (the BMW and a Lexus). Drugs and packaging were recovered from the BMW and items from the home. No contraband was recovered from the Lexus.
- Torres was convicted by a jury (Mar. 10, 2015) of multiple offenses including aggravated assault, possession with intent to deliver, firearms offenses, and PIC; the court imposed an aggregate 66–132 year sentence (July 8, 2015).
- On appeal Torres challenged (1) the home-search warrant’s probable cause, (2) denial of severance of drug/gun-possession counts from the officer-assault counts, and (3–4) sentencing issues. The Superior Court found the home warrant unsupported by probable cause, affirmed vehicle warrants (BMW and harmless with respect to Lexus), affirmed denial of severance, vacated the judgment of sentence, and remanded for a new trial excluding evidence from the unlawful home search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Torres) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Probable cause for search warrant of Torres’s home | Warrant valid because Torres was arrested near home and had a gun; guns are commonly stored at home so nexus exists | Affidavit lacked case-specific facts linking the gun or other evidence to the home; mere proximity and lawful ownership of guns do not establish nexus | Warrant for home search invalid for lack of nexus; suppression of home-search evidence required |
| 2. BMW and Lexus warrants as fruit of poisonous tree | Vehicle warrants valid and independent of home search; BMW affidavit recited flight, crash, struggle and supported probable cause; Lexus yielded no evidence | Vehicle searches flowed from unlawful home search and must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree | BMW warrant affirmed (independent probable cause); Lexus objection moot/harmless (no evidence introduced) |
| 3. Motion to sever drug/gun counts from assault counts | Consolidation proper because evidence of the drug possession was admissible and part of the sequence of events; evidence capable of separation | Drug/gun evidence prejudicial and inadmissible in an assault-only trial; severance required | Denial of severance affirmed (no undue prejudice); issue will recur on retrial given suppression ruling |
| 4. Sentencing claims (mandatory minimum and excessive sentence) | Sentence and application of mandatory minimum valid | Mandatory-term interpretation error; sentence excessive and inadequately reasoned | Not addressed on merits because judgment vacated; sentencing issues reserved for retrial/sentencing if convicted |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (adopts totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (search-warrant review and dorm-room nexus for murder investigation)
- Commonwealth v. Kline, 335 A.2d 361 (Pa. Super. 1975) (informant-based affidavit must connect premises to criminal activity)
- Commonwealth v. Way, 492 A.2d 1151 (Pa. Super. 1985) (probable cause to arrest does not automatically justify home search without nexus)
- Commonwealth v. Frye, 363 A.2d 1202 (Pa. Super. 1976) (defendant’s admission of conducting illegal activity from home can establish nexus)
- Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991) (Pennsylvania’s strong privacy principles and exclusionary-rule analysis under Article I, § 8)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 756 A.2d 1139 (Pa. 2000) (other-crimes evidence admissible when part of natural development of events)
- Commonwealth v. DeHart, 516 A.2d 656 (Pa. 1986) (consolidation can be proper where offenses form a sequence of events)