In Re: A.W. Appeal of A.W., a Juvenile
In Re: A.W. Appeal of A.W., a Juvenile No. 836 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 18, 2017Background
- A.W., a Radnor High School student, was accused of selling 13 Adderall pills to another student, S.M.; S.M. confessed and pills were found in her bag.
- School administrators searched A.W. and found $81 on him, with $65 separated from the rest.
- Commonwealth charged A.W. with possession with intent to distribute; other charges were dismissed at trial.
- At adjudicatory hearing, eyewitness J.C., purchaser S.M., a school administrator, and a police officer testified; A.W. testified he obtained $65 by selling a Nintendo 3DS for a friend on Amazon.
- Trial court limited defense questioning about the mechanics and collateral details of the alleged video game sale and denied a request for a continuance to secure an alibi witness; A.W. was adjudicated delinquent.
- Juvenile court denied post-dispositional relief; A.W. appealed arguing exclusion of testimony violated state and federal constitutional rights to present a defense.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court unconstitutionally curtailed A.W.’s testimony about the source of the $65, denying his right to present a defense | Trial court prevented A.W. from fully explaining the source/mechanics of the $65 (sale of a game), infringing due process and Art. I, § 9 rights | Court permitted A.W. to state he sold the game; further details were irrelevant and cumulative, so exclusion was proper | Court held exclusion was not an abuse of discretion; testimony about source was allowed in substance, and further detail was irrelevant |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying continuance to subpoena alibi witness | A.W. argued denial prevented presentation of alibi evidence | Commonwealth noted hearing was long-scheduled and defense had opportunity to secure witness earlier | Court found no abuse of discretion in denying continuance |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for disturbing juvenile court disposition for abuse of discretion)
- In re F.P., 878 A.2d 91 (Pa. Super. 2005) (admission of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Tyson, 119 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2015) (relevance is threshold for admissibility under Pa.R.E. 401)
- Commonwealth v. B.H., 138 A.3d 15 (Pa. Super. 2016) (excusable delay standard for filing appeals)