Com. v. Foster, S. ( 2014 )

J-S74003-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
SUDEN FOSTER,
Appellant No. 1693 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 17, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000490-2010
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DONOHUE, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 31, 2014
Appellant, Suden Foster, appeals from the judgment of sentence of 3
to 6 years’ incarceration. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence, and the admission of expert testimony. Appellant also challenges
the trial court’s denial of his motions for a mistrial following the testimony of
a witness for the Commonwealth, and following a statement made by the
trial court during jury voir dire. We affirm.
Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on January 29, 2013. The facts
adduced at trial were as follows:
This case arose from three narcotics surveillances conducted by
the Philadelphia Police Department ("PPD") on December 30,
2013, January 7, 2014, and January 10, 2014 at 4904 Old York
Road. The first two surveillances were conducted by Philadelphia
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S74003-14
Police Officer Riel Thwaites [] and his partner Officer Young. The
third surveillance was conducted in conjunction with the
execution of two search warrants. Testifying for the
Commonwealth were six police officers, including an expert
witness, and a detective who provided rebuttal testimony.
On December 30, 2007[,] at approximately 7:45 p.m.,
Officers Thwaites and Young directed a confidential informant
("C.I.") to purchase narcotics with pre-recorded United States
currency from a bar called the Sports Den at 4904 Old York
Road. The C.I. knocked and was admitted by [Appellant].
Approximately one minute later, the C.I. exited the location, and
handed over one purple packet to Officer Young. The powder
inside the packet tested positive for the presence of cocaine.
[Appellant] then exited the location and used a key to access the
door to the second floor apartment. Officers Thwaites and
Young observed five or six people engage in what they believed
to be narcotics transactions at the location that evening.
On January 7, 2008 at approximately 7:45 p.m., Officers
Thwaites and Young returned with the same C.I. The C.I. was
again searched, given pre-recorded buy money, and directed to
purchase narcotics from 4904 Old York Road. After the C.I.
made the purchase, Officer Thwaites followed him to a
confidential location. The C.I. handed over one purple colored
packet containing a white powdered substance, which tested
positive for cocaine. Again, [o]fficers observed five or six people
engage in what police believed to be narcotics transactions at
the location.
On January 10, 2008 at approximately 7:30 p.m., Officers
Thwaites, Young, Bogan, Sergeant Torpey and other members of
the PPD[] set up a third surveillance. Officer Thwaites secured
two search warrants for the first and second floors. Officer
Young testified that a black Acura Legend, owned by [Appellant],
drove into the parking lot adjacent to the Sports Den. A man
exited the vehicle, walked over to the location and was admitted.
[Appellant] emerged from the bar, examined his car, and
reentered the building, at which time police executed the search
warrant for the first floor. Officer Thwaites knocked and
announced but there was no answer. Using a ram and a pry tool
called a [H]all[i]gan, officers breached the door. The door flew
open and immediately slammed shut again. When the door flew
open, Officer Thwaites saw [Appellant], who was standing behind
the bar, turn towards the rear of the property. Police reopened
-2-
J-S74003-14
the door and gained entry twenty to thirty seconds later. …
[Appellant] was not apprehended or seen again until his arrest
on April 21, 2009.
Police recovered from the bar area[] eighteen grayish
packets of cocaine, one bag containing bulk cocaine, one
sandwich bag of marijuana, another plastic bag of marijuana, six
yellow packets of marijuana, one pink straw for cutting cocaine,
one black scale, and an amber pill bottle which contained five
pills. Officers recovered a Verizon statement, in [Appellant’s]
name, addressed to 4904 Old York Road, which contained a
refund check payable to [Appellant]. A Verizon card was also
recovered, in [Appellant’s] name, addressed to 4904 Old York
Road, which also contained a refund check payable to
[Appellant]. Police also recovered a photograph of [Appellant]
with a small child and a Liberty Travel luggage tag with
[Appellant’s] name. A Pep Boys bill in [Appellant’s] name was
also recovered from the first floor. Additionally, four bags of
new and unused narcotics packaging were found behind the bar.
Police confiscated $436.00 from the cash register. From the
second floor apartment, … police recovered another Verizon bill
in Appellant’s name. Finally, [Appellant’s] vehicle was
confiscated.
A total of 19.07 grams of cocaine and over 7 grams of
marijuana were recovered. Officer Keys, a narcotics expert,
testified that: "...the narcotics as well as the packaging, scale,
[and] the straw [were] possessed with intent to distribute []."
Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 6/10/14, at 3 – 6 (citations to the record
omitted).
Appellant was convicted of possession with intent to deliver on January
31, 2013. On May 17, 2013, Appellant was sentenced to a term of 3 to 6
years’ incarceration. He filed a timely notice of appeal, as well as a timely
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b).
Appellant now presents the following questions for our review:
-3-
J-S74003-14
I. The trial court erred in reading the Commonwealth’s
submitted statement of the case to the jury[,] as
provided to the trial court by the prosecution[,]
because it grossly mischaracterized the evidence.
Moreover, a curative instruction was warranted[,]
and sought[,] but denied.
II. [] The Commonwealth’s use of a drug expert
constituted prejudicial error[,] and [] [Appellant’s]
request for a mistrial in that regard was improperly
denied.
III. Officer Thwaites’[s] testimony on cross-examination
regarding a phone conversation he had with
Appellant was in violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 573 and
[Commonwealth v.] Brady[, 63 S.Ct. 1194(1963),] because it was not turned over to Appellant
prior to trial. The trial court erred in denying
Appellant’s motion for mistrial with regard to this
issue where[,] even after a sustained objection to
the first improper question, the [Commonwealth]
followed up with another question about the phone
conversation that was grossly improper and
prejudicial.
IV. [] The evidence presented by the Commonwealth at
trial was insufficient as a matter of law to support a
guilty verdict on the [possession with intent to
deliver] charge.
Appellant’s brief at 11 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
For the sake of clarity, we first turn to Appellant’s challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence. We begin by noting that Appellant concedes: “In
the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence was sufficient
to establish [Appellant’s] guilt.” Id. at 43. However, Appellant argues, that
“two equally reasonable and mutually inconsistent inferences can be drawn”
from the evidence in the instant case, and “a jury must not be permitted to
guess which inference it will adopt.” Appellant’s brief at 44 (citations
-4-
J-S74003-14
omitted). In presenting this argument, Appellant disregards our well-
established standard of review with regard to sufficiency of the evidence,
which is as follows:
A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question
of law. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict
when it establishes each material element of the crime charged
and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a
reasonable doubt . . . . When reviewing the sufficiency claim the
court is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all
reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000) (citations
omitted). On appeal, “we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our
judgment for that of the fact-finder.” Commonwealth v. Ventrini, 734
A.2d 404, 407 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citations omitted). Furthermore, we
recognize that “the facts and circumstances established by the
Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence.” Id.In the instant case, the police did not seize narcotics from Appellant’s
person. Consequently, the Commonwealth was required to prove that
Appellant constructively possessed the narcotics. See Commonwealth v.
Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817, 820 (Pa. Super. 2013). The Commonwealth may
meet its burden of proof “by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.” Id.
at 820.
Here, the police engaged the assistance of a confidential informant.
The informant was sent, on two separate occasions, to purchase narcotics.
On both occasions, police observed Appellant open the door for the
-5-
J-S74003-14
informant to enter 4904 Old York Road. The informant then left a few
minutes later, and turned over cocaine to the police. The police on both
occasions also observed Appellant admit a number of people to the building.
These people left the building minutes after they entered.
The police subsequently executed a search warrant at that address,
during which they discovered a large quantity of cocaine and marijuana, as
well as a straw and a scale. An expert witness for the Commonwealth
testified that the manner in which the narcotics were packaged, as well as
the presence of the scale and straw, indicated that the narcotics were
possessed with the intent to distribute them.
The narcotics were seized from an area where the police also
discovered personal effects containing Appellant’s name, such as a phone
bill, a Pep Boys bill, and a luggage claim check. The address provided on
the phone bill was 4904 Old York Road. There was a picture of Appellant on
the wall of the room from where the contraband was seized. When the
police executed the search warrant, Appellant fled from the premises (while
the two other people who were present did not). Moreover, at the time the
warrant was executed, Appellant was standing behind the bar, where the
narcotics were recovered. Having reviewed the record before us, we
conclude that the evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to find that
Appellant constructively possessed cocaine with the intent to deliver it.
We now turn to Appellant’s claim that a mistrial was required after the
trial court read a memorandum prepared by the Commonwealth to the jury
-6-
J-S74003-14
during voir dire that stated, “after he [Appellant] sold the cocaine….”1
Appellant’s brief at 15. Appellant argues that he was prejudiced by this
statement because it “gave the jury… the impression… it was a foregone
conclusion that Appellant sold the drugs.” Id. Appellant filed a motion for
extraordinary relief, seeking a mistrial, which the trial court denied.
We review the denial of motions for mistrial under the following
standard:
The denial of a motion for a mistrial is assessed on appellate
review according to an abuse of discretion standard. The central
tasks confronting the trial court upon the making of the motion
were to determine whether misconduct or prejudicial error
actually occurred, and if so, to assess the degree of any resulting
prejudice.
Commonwealth v. Kerrigan, 920 A.2d 190, 199 (Pa. Super. 2007)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 907 A.2d 477, 491 (Pa. 2006)
(internal citation omitted)). Moreover,
____________________________________________
1
Appellant appears to raise an additional allegation of prosecutorial
misconduct with regard to the memorandum the Commonwealth prepared.
During a sidebar discussion between counsel and the judge regarding the
admissibility of expert testimony, counsel for the Commonwealth stated that
“There are no buys in this case whatsoever observed.” N.T., 1/29/13, at 77.
Appellant claims that this statement contradicts the Commonwealth’s
memorandum. Notwithstanding Appellant’s claim, these statements are not
irreconcilable. As noted infra, the Commonwealth was not required to offer
eyewitness testimony regarding a transaction, as they were permitted to
establish their burden of proof through wholly circumstantial evidence. The
mere fact that the police did not observe Appellant selling narcotics did not
bar the Commonwealth from introducing evidence, and arguing, that
Appellant sold narcotics. In fact, this was exactly what the Commonwealth
was required to prove.
-7-
J-S74003-14
[w]hether to grant the extreme remedy of a mistrial is a matter
falling into the discretion of the trial court. “A trial court need
only grant a mistrial where the alleged prejudicial event may
reasonably be said to deprive the defendant of a fair and
impartial trial.”
Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 846 A.2d 75, 95 (Pa. 2004) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Jones, 668 A.2d 491, 503 (Pa. 1995)).
Any potential prejudice incurred by the trial court’s brief statement
during voir dire was mitigated by the court’s much lengthier opening
instructions to the jury regarding Appellant’s presumption of innocence:
Please remember that the charges that are brought against
[Appellant] are accusations. They are not proof that [Appellant]
is guilty.
Remember that a fundamental [principle] of our law is that
you must presume [Appellant] is innocent. This means you are
to accept that the mere fact he has been charged with this crime
doesn’t mean he’s guilty of it. He begins the case with a clean
slate and has no obligation to prove his innocence.
It is always the Commonwealth that bears the burden of
convincing you, the jurors, that [Appellant][,] [who] is presumed
innocent as the trial begins and as the trial progresses, is guilty
of the crimes for which he’s charged.
To succeed, the Commonwealth must convince you that
based on a fair consideration of all the evidence that will be
offered, each element of the offense charged has been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt.
N.T., 1/29/13, at 5 – 6. In light of these opening instructions by the court,
Appellant has failed to establish that the trial court’s brief statement during
jury voir dire so deprived him of a fair trial that the extreme remedy of a
mistrial was warranted. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court’s denial
of Appellant’s motion for mistrial was not an abuse of discretion.
-8-
J-S74003-14
Next, we address Appellant’s claim regarding the admissibility of
expert testimony offered by the Commonwealth. Specifically, Appellant
argues that such testimony was improper and cumulative. In support of this
claim, Appellant relies on this Court’s holdings in Commonwealth v.
Carter, 589 A.2d 1133 (Pa. Super. 1991), and Commonwealth v.
Montavo, 653 A.2d 770 (Pa. Super. 1995). In both Carter and Montavo,
this Court held that where police observe a narcotics sale, expert testimony
“concerning whether the facts surrounding the possession of controlled
substances were consistent with an intent to deliver” is inadmissible.
Carter, 589 A.2d at 619 (internal citation omitted). Where an eyewitness
can testify that a transaction occurred, a factfinder does not require special
knowledge to reach the conclusion that the transaction did in fact occur. Id.The instant case is easily distinguished from Carter and Montavo. As
Appellant concedes, “the [confidential informant] did not testify, nor did
anyone testify that [A]ppellant was seen possessing or selling drugs.”
Appellant’s brief at 38. Here, it is uncontroverted that the police did not
observe Appellant engage in a narcotics sale. As such, it was not error for
the trial court to permit the Commonwealth to introduce the testimony of an
expert witness.
Finally, we turn to Appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in
denying a mistrial when a witness testified about a phone call with Appellant.
On cross-examination, counsel for Appellant elicited testimony from a police
officer indicating that the officer had spoken with Appellant on the telephone
-9-
J-S74003-14
prior to Appellant’s arrest.2 Subsequently, on redirect examination, counsel
for the Commonwealth asked this witness about speaking to Appellant via
telephone. Counsel for Appellant objected. Inexplicably, the sidebar
discussion regarding this objection was not transcribed. Therefore, it is not
part of the record before this Court on appeal, and we do not know the basis
of Appellant’s objection to this testimony. The trial court ultimately
sustained Appellant’s objection to the question, and instructed the jury not
to consider it, but denied Appellant’s motion for a mistrial.3
Appellant appears to argue that a mistrial was warranted because the
Commonwealth committed a pretrial discovery violation when it failed to
disclose the existence of this phone call to Appellant. Specifically, Appellant
____________________________________________
2
Appellant states in his brief that his counsel objected to this testimony
during cross-examination, and that the objection was sustained. Appellant’s
brief at 33. We have reviewed the notes of testimony, and the record does
not reflect that Appellant’s counsel objected to this testimony during his
cross-examination of the witness who testified about the phone call. N.T.,
1/29/13, at 56 – 59. Our review of the record indicates that counsel for
Appellant objected to this testimony for the first time during the
Commonwealth’s redirect examination. Id. at 63. Moreover, the trial court
did not issue a ruling regarding the admissibility of this testimony until
Appellant’s counsel objected during the Commonwealth’s redirect
examination. Appellant’s contention that the Commonwealth attempted to
solicit testimony that the trial court had already deemed inadmissible is not
supported by the record.
3
The failure to object to a curative instruction constitutes a waiver of the
claim that that instruction was insufficient. Commonwealth v. Hodge, 411
A. 2d 503, 509 n. 8 (Pa. Super. 1979). Given that the sidebar regarding this
issue was not transcribed, the record does not reflect whether Appellant
objected to the curative instruction admonishing the jury not to consider the
Commonwealth’s question.
- 10 -
J-S74003-14
alleges that the failure to disclose the existence of this phone call violated
Pa.R.Crim.P. 573, which states in applicable part,
(B) Disclosure by the Commonwealth.
(1) Mandatory. In all court cases, on request by the defendant,
and subject to any protective order which the Commonwealth
might obtain under this rule, the Commonwealth shall disclose to
the defendant's attorney all of the following requested items or
information, provided they are material to the instant case. The
Commonwealth shall, when applicable, permit the defendant's
attorney to inspect and copy or photograph such items.
(a) Any evidence favorable to the accused that is material either
to guilt or to punishment, and is within the possession or control
of the attorney for the Commonwealth.
In addition, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth’s failure to
disclose the existence of the phone call violated his federal constitutional
rights as detailed in Brady, in which the United States Supreme Court held
that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused
upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to
guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the
prosecution.” Brady, 63 S.Ct. at 1196-1197. With regard to Brady
violations, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held:
To prove a Brady violation, Appellant must demonstrate that:
(1) the prosecution concealed evidence; (2) which evidence was
either exculpatory or impeachment evidence favorable to him
and; (3) he was prejudiced by the concealment. In order to
prove prejudice, Appellant must show a “reasonable probability
that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result
of the proceeding would have been different.” Stated differently,
the undisclosed evidence must be “material to guilt or
punishment.” Further, “[i]mpeachment evidence which goes to
the credibility of a primary witness against the accused is critical
evidence and it is material to the case whether that evidence is
- 11 -
J-S74003-14
merely a promise or an understanding between the prosecution
and the witness.” … Finally, we note that “[t]here is no Brady
violation when the appellant knew, or with reasonable diligence,
could have uncovered the evidence in question.”
Commonwealth v. Bomar, 2014 WL 6608963, at *5 (Pa. Nov. 21, 2014)
(internal citations omitted).
Appellant claims that he could not have uncovered the evidence in
question with reasonable diligence. However, the evidence in question is a
phone call to which Appellant was a party. It is unclear how Appellant could
not have known about a conversation in which he participated. Moreover,
nothing in the record before us suggests that counsel for the Commonwealth
knew about this phone conversation before counsel for Appellant solicited
testimony about it during trial. Accordingly, we conclude this claim is
without merit.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/31/2014
- 12 -