COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. AMY MCFALLS
No. 249 EDA 2020
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 10, 2021
2021 PA Super 92
J-A08033-21; Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 11, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0002346-2018
OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: May 10, 2021
Appellant, Amy McFalls, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County following her conviction at a bench trial on the charge of driving while under the influence of alcohol (“DUI“),1 as well as her conviction by a jury on the charges of aggravated harassment by a prisoner and institutional vandalism.2 After a careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows:
At approximately 2:30 a.m., on March 22, 2018, Officer William Kane and Officer Hagen of the Norristown Police Department arrived on the scene of a one-car accident on the 1300 block of Sandy Hill Road. Upon arrival, the officers found a
vacated Dodge Dakota, [which had] collided with a poll [sic]. There was a witness on the scene, Rogelio Resendiz, shoveling snow when the officers arrived. He pointed Officer Kane in the direction of [Appellant], who had left the scene of the accident on foot. Officer Kane found [Appellant] at the bottom of a nearby hill covered in snow and speaking on her cell phone. He engaged her in conversation and escorted her back to the scene of the accident.
During this interaction, Officer Kane was able to observe that [Appellant] had bloodshot eyes and trouble walking back to her car. Once at the scene of the vehicle crash, Officer Kane placed [Appellant] in handcuffs, informed her that she was under arrest, and read her the DL-26 form.
The officers transported [Appellant] to the Norristown police station, where she was plаced into a holding cell. While in the cell, [Appellant] removed her sweater and placed it in the toilet. [Appellant] then flushed the toilet, causing the toilet to overflow. In response, several officers entered the cell, handcuffed [Appellant‘s] wrists, and placed a prisoner transport belt around her waist. Additionally, the officers attempted to shackle [Appellant‘s] legs, so as to prevent further incident while attempting to clean the cell of the overflowed toilet water. Officer Stephanie Flynn aided in attempting to physically restrain [Appellant] so as to shackle her. It was at this time that [Appellant] spit in the face [of] Officer Flynn[.]
Trial Court Opinion, filed 6/22/20, at 2-3 (footnote and citations to record omitted).3
Appellant was charged with vаrious offenses, and on November 15, 2018, Appellant served a subpoena upon the Norristown Police Department‘s police chief (“Police Department“). Therein, she directed him (or the custodian of records) to appear at Appellant‘s pre-trial hearing and bring with him:
A copy of: Any documents relating to the conduct of [Appellant] or restraining officers, any records related to any investigation or use of force against [Appellant], all policies, guidelines, and training materials promulgated by the department regarding witness interviews, DUI arrest, the use of force, custody and care of prisoners, use of force reporting requirements, restraint procedures for combative prisoners, and persons in custody with health issues.
Subpoena, filed 11/15/18.
On March 13, 2019, the Poliсe Department filed a motion to quash the subpoena. Therein, the Police Department asserted the subpoena should be quashed on the basis it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and “on its face... a fishing expedition.” Police Department Motion, filed 3/13/19. The Police Department indicated Appellant was “seeking the production of a massive number of documents, none of which hаve any obvious relevance to [Appellant‘s] guilt or innocence in this matter.” Id. Alternatively, the Police Department asserted “the proper vehicle [for] this request [of documents] would be a motion pursuant to [
On March 13, 2019, Appellant filed a response to the Police Department‘s motion to quash the subpoena. Therein, Appellant contended the use of a subpoena to gain access to the requested documents is the proper vehicle, and her request was not overly broad.
Following a hearing held on March 29, 2019, the trial court filed an order summarily granting the Police Department‘s motion to quash the subpoena.
On May 1, 2019, Appellant filed a pre-trial discovery motion. Therein, Appellant relevantly indicated:
[Appellant] refines her request to include those documents, policies, guidelines, or training material, currently in effect and in possession of the Norristown police department, promulgated within the last ten years, used for training in thе use of force, documenting use of force, for determining when use of force is appropriate and not appropriate, and any policies, guidelines, and materials related to internal investigations, and possible penalties for officer misconduct.
Appellant‘s Pre-Trial Discovery Motion, filed 5/1/19.
On May 13, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the pre-trial discovery motion. The trial court concluded Appellant‘s May 1, 2019, request was overbroad, and the trial court inquired as to the materiality of the request. Appellant averred the materials were relevant to challenge the credibility of the police officers. The trial court denied Appellant‘s May 1, 2019, discovery request on the basis it was overly broad and the requested documents were not material.
Appellant did not file post-sentence motions, however, on January 9, 2020, she filed a timely counseled notice of appeal. On January 15, 2020, the trial court directed Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and on January 29, 2020, Appellant filed a request for an extension of time. On February 3, 2020, the trial court granted Appellant‘s request for an extension,4 and on February 19, 2020, Appellant filed a counseled Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. On June 22, 2020, the trial court filed a responsive Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
- Were the Defendant/Appellant‘s rights to compulsory process and confrontation afforded by Article 1, Section 9 of Pennsylvania‘s constitution violated when the trial court quashed and denied requests by Defendant/Appellant, as improper in form, overbroad, and/or irrelevant, requests for police department guidelines that the Defendant/Appellant sought to demonstrate bias at trial?
- Were the Defendant/Appellant‘s rights pursuant to
Pa.R.Crim.P. 646(B)(1) violated when the trial court provided written charges of the substantive offenses to the jury but failed to include a written copy of the orally charged defense of necessity?
Appellant‘s Brief at 4-5.
In her first issue, Appellant contends her rights to сompulsory process and confrontation afforded by Article 1, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution were violated when the trial court quashed her subpoena. Specifically, Appellant contends the trial court erred in holding a subpoena was not the proper vehicle for her request for documents. Further, she asserts her subpoena was not overly broad, and she articulated a reasonable basis for the documents. Accordingly, Appellant argues the trial court erred in quashing her subpoena, which she served upon the Police Department.
Preliminarily, we agree with Appellant that a subpoena may properly be issued in a criminal case directing a witness to appear before the court, as well as bring “any items identified or desсribed.”
Whether a subpoena shall be enforced rests in the judicial discretion of thе court. We will not disturb a discretionary ruling of a trial court unless the record demonstrates an abuse of the court‘s discretion. So long as there is evidence which supports the trial court‘s decision, it will be affirmed. We may not substitute our judgment of the evidence for that of the trial court.
An abuse of discretion is more than just an error in judgment and, on appeal, the trial court will not be found to havе abused its discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.
Commonwealth v. Mucci, 143 A.3d 399, 411-12 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citations omitted).
With regard to obtaining records such as those requested by Appellant, Appellant must “articulate a reasonable basis for h[er] request; a criminal defendant is not entitled to a ‘wholesale inspection’ of investigatory files.” Id. at 412 (citation omitted). See Mejia-Arias, supra (holding а defendant is only entitled to review relevant material in the police‘s files where there exits at least some reason to believe the inspection would lead to evidence helpful to the defense).
Additionally, as this Court has explained:
A defendant‘s subpoena power is not unlimited. According to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, subpoenas in criminal cases are to be used not only for trial but also at any other stage, including hearings in connection with pre-trial motions. Nevertheless, “when the subpoena is for the production of documents, records, or things, these should be specified.” [The] right to exculpatory material does not mean that a defendant has unfettered access to files not in h[er] possession, nor that [s]he may search untrammeled through Commonwealth files in order to argue the relevance of material therein[.]
Mejia-Arias, 734 A.2d at 878 (citations and quotations omitted) (emphasis in original).
Moreover, as our Pennsylvania Supreme Court has relevantly indicated:
[T]he strong public interest in protecting the privacy and safety of law enforcement officers, requires a narrowly targeted and supported request for relevant documents. A defendant has no right to obtain or review personnel records in the mere hope that [s]he might uncover some сollateral information with which to challenge the credibility of a police officer.
Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 596 Pa. 510, 946 A.2d 645, 660-61 (2008).5
In the case sub judice, we conclude the subpoena was overly broad. Given the broad scope of the subpoena, and Appellant‘s failure to articulate a reasonable basis for her request, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in quashing the subpoena. Appellant may not engage in a “fishing expedition” hoping to find something in the police personnel files, disciplinary
In her secоnd issue, Appellant contends the trial court violated
Initially, we note that whether written materials should be allowed to go out with thе jury during deliberations is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Barnett, 50 A.3d 176 (Pa.Super. 2012).
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 646, pertaining to material permitted in possession of the jury, provides, in relevant part, the following:
(B) The trial judge may permit the members of the jury to have for use during deliberations written copies of the portion of the judge‘s charge on the elements of the offenses, lesser included offenses, and any defense upon which the jury has been instructed.
(1) If the judge permits the jury to have written copies of the portion of the judge‘s charge on the elements of the offenses, lesser included offenses, and any defense upon which the jury has been instructed, the judge shall provide that portion of the charge in its entirety.
During the jury‘s deliberations, the following relevant exchange occurred:
THE COURT: All right. The jury has requested the elements of the charges in this case. It is at the discretion of the Court to send them back or not, clean copies. I have clean copies that I will send back. There was an issue raised by the defense. What are you requesting?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I—
THE COURT: Are you requesting that I send back 45 pages?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, that they have all of the instructions.
THE COURT: That is denied. I am going to send back the clean copies of aggravated harassment by prisоner and institutional vandalism. I will send that back to them. And with that if we have any other questions, we will address them when they come up.
N.T., 9/17/19, at 153.
Appellant argues that, since the trial court permitted the jury to have written copies of the portion of the judge‘s charge on the elements of the offenses, the trial court abused its discretion under
It is well-settled that to preserve an issue for review, a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial, and this Court “will not consider a claim on appeal which was not called to the trial court‘s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 606 A.2d 939, 942 (Pa.Super. 1992) (citations omitted). See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.“). This requirement bars an appellant from raising “a new and different theory of relief” for the first time on appeal. Commonwealth v. York, 465 A.2d 1028, 1032 (Pa.Super. 1983).
[Appellant] specifically cites to th[e] [trial] court‘s failure to provide the jury with the written elements of the defense of necessity, as allegedly requested at trial. As aforementioned, [Appellant] did not identify specific elements or defenses sought to be provided in writing, but rather requested the whole charge. Therefore, as [her issue regarding written copies of the defense of necessity] was not specifically raised or requested at trial, this allegation of error is waived.
Trial Court Opinion, filed 6/22/20, at 4.
We agree with the trial court‘s sound reasoning. At trial, in response to the trial court‘s indication that it was granting the jury‘s request to use during deliberations written copies of the judge‘s charge on the elements of the offenses, Appellant requested the jury be provided with “all of thе instructions.” N.T., 9/17/19, at 153. The trial court denied this request.
However, on appeal, apparently recognizing that
For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/10/21