Com. v. Mosley, D. ( 2015 )

J-A33005-14
2015 Pa. Super. 88
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DONTE MOSLEY
Appellant No. 827 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment Entered February 24, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0007437-2012
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., WECHT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 20, 2015
Donte Mosley appeals from his judgment of sentence, entered in the
Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, after being convicted by a jury
of three counts of possession of a controlled substance1 and one count of
possession with the intent to deliver a controlled substance (cocaine).2 The
Commonwealth sought, and the sentencing court applied, the mandatory
minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. §
7508 (drug trafficking sentencing/penalties). Mosley was sentenced to a
term of 66-132 months’ imprisonment for the intent to deliver charge, an
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16).
2
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
J-A33005-14
aggravated-range sentence.3 After careful review, we affirm Mosley’s
convictions, vacate his judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.
On August 13, 2012, at approximately 2:00 p.m., Ridley Township
Police Officer Leo Doyle was on patrol in the Secane area in response to a
complaint about illegal drug activity at the Presidential Square Apartments
on South Avenue. James Latticlaw, the complainant, had told the police that
squatters were selling drugs out of his apartment. Sergeant Charles Palo
and Corporal Daniel Smith, also members of the Ridley Township Police
Department, accompanied Officer Doyle to the Secane address in a separate
police vehicle. When the two police vehicles arrived at the apartment
complex, the police observed a black Cadillac driving towards them and saw
Latticlaw pointing toward the Cadillac.
After seeing Latticlaw gesture toward the Cadillac, both police vehicles
followed the car as it pulled out of the parking lot. While only a few feet
behind the Cadillac, Officer Doyle saw Mosley, the driver of the Cadillac, put
his arm out of the driver’s side window and drop two clear plastic bags.4
Corporal Smith picked up the two bags while Officer Doyle activated his siren
and police lights and pulled the Cadillac over. Corporal Smith contacted
____________________________________________
3
The possession charges merged, for sentencing purposes, with the intent
to deliver charge.
4
Each bag was knotted at the top. One bag contained five bags (baggies) of
a white powdery substance. N.T. Trial Testimony, 9/16/13, at 177. The
other bag contained three bags (baggies) of suspected heroin. Id.
-2-
J-A33005-14
Officer Doyle to tell him the baggies contained narcotics.5 Doyle arrested
Mosley and, in a search incident to arrest, recovered two cellular phones and
$117.00 in cash from his person. Affidavit of Probable Cause, 8/13/12, at 1.
No drugs or drug paraphernalia were found on the passenger in the Cadillac.
Prior to trial, Mosley filed a motion to suppress text messages that
were viewed by a police officer on the two cell phones6 confiscated from him
during the search incident to his arrest. Ridley Township Police Officer John
McDevitt testified that as Mosley was being processed at the police station
on the instant charges, the officer viewed texts that kept “popping up” on
the screens of the mobile phones. Officer McDevitt first testified that the
phones were already powered on and they required no password or other
manipulation (like “swiping”) to view the texts. However, the officer later
testified that he was unable to recall whether he had to swipe anything to
view the text messages.
Mosley filed a pretrial motion to suppress the search of the two cell
phones and the numerous text messages found on them, basing his
arguments on authentication and hearsay grounds. Mosley filed a second
____________________________________________
5
The parties stipulated that the Pennsylvania State Police Crime Lab
evaluated the substances found in the two plastic bags discarded from the
Cadillac and determined the interior baggies contained 10.5 grams of
cocaine, 0.64 grams of heroin, and 6 oxycontin pills. The baggies of heroin
had the words “crazy horse” written on them.
6
One cell phone was a Samsung and the other phone was an HTC.
-3-
J-A33005-14
motion seeking to suppress all data obtained as a result of a subsequent
search warrant for the phones. After the suppression hearing, but before
the court rendered a decision, Mosley filed a motion to open the hearing in
order to present testimony to prove that the texts could not have been
viewed by the police unless they took some affirmative action to read them.
On April 22, 2013, all pretrial motions were denied.
On September 16-17, 2013, a jury trial was held. At trial, Sergeant
Kenneth Rutherford, an expert in the field of drugs and drug investigations,
testified for the Commonwealth. Officer Doyle had contacted Sgt.
Rutherford about the instant case, gave him basic information about the
arrest (including what was confiscated at the stop) and asked the sergeant
to prepare a search warrant. In response, Sgt. Rutherford prepared an
application for a search warrant,7 specifically requesting that the contents of
the cell phones found on Mosley be searched. Text messages from both cell
____________________________________________
7
The search warrant identified the following items to be searched and
seized:
Any and all text messages (incoming and outgoing), email
messages (incoming and outgoing), photographs, contacts and
other forms of electronic communication. Any items used to
keep drug transaction records (spreadsheets etc.). Any and all
secondary cell phone applications (and its contents) which are
capable of sending receiving voice calls, text messages, and
emails. Any and all other contraband.
Application for Search Warrant and Authorization, 2/28/13, at 1, 4.
-4-
J-A33005-14
phones revealed personal messages received by Mosley from friends and
family. Several other text messages were indicative of drug related
sales/activity. The cell phone report records were marked and admitted into
evidence at trial. The trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction on the
text messages.8
At the conclusion of trial, Mosley was found guilty of possession of a
controlled substance (oxycodone), possession of a controlled substance
(heroin), possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), and possession
with intent to deliver. Mosley was sentenced to 66-132 months’
imprisonment, followed by 5 years of state probation. Mosley filed an
____________________________________________
8
The trial judge gave the following limiting instruction as to text messages:
This evidence is before you for a limited purpose and it is for the
purpose of tending to show the Defendant is fluent in the
language used by those persons who deal in illegal drug
transactions. This evidence must not be construed by you or
considered by you in any way other than for the purpose I just
stated. You must not regard this evidence as showing that the
Defendant is a person of bad character or criminal tendencies
from which you might include – be inclined to infer guilt. The
Defendant contends that he is not the transmitter or receiver of
the text messages. However, you may consider circumstantial
evidence in evaluating this issue and provide whatever weight
you deem appropriate thereto.
N.T. Jury Trial, 9/17/13, at 165 (emphasis added).
-5-
J-A33005-14
unsuccessful motion in arrest of judgment and/or for a new trial. This
appeal follows.
On appeal, Mosley raises the following issues for our consideration:9
(1) Did the lower court err in admitting the hearsay
statements testified to by Officer Leo Doyle regarding a
telephone call he received as well as a statement made at
the scene?
(2) Did the lower court err in allowing evidence of text
messages despite the fact that said messages were not
properly authenticated, but were also hearsay?
(3) Did the lower court err in failing to suppress evidence of
text messages taken from the cellphones by the arresting
officers?
(4) Did the lower court err in failing to suppress the
information and/or text messages taken from the above
cellphones as a result of a search warrant since said
evidence was the “fruit of the poisonous tree”?
(5) Did the lower court err in failing to suppress the said text
messages taken pursuant to a search warrant from the cell
phones found on the person of the Appellant as a violation
of the United States Constitution, Amendments 4 and 14[,]
and the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 8[,]
for failure to link the items requested to be searched with
the alleged crime committed?
(6) Did the lower court err in finding that there was sufficient
evidence to uphold the verdict and also err in finding that
the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence?
(7) Did the lower court err in failing to reopen the suppression
hearing to allow Appellant to introduce evidence
contradicting the police officers concerning their reading of
the text messages?
____________________________________________
9
We have consolidated our review of issues 2-5, as they are intertwined.
-6-
J-A33005-14
(8) Was sentencing the Appellant to a five year mandatory
minimum sentence pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. [§]7508 illegal
because the statute was unconstitutional? Admission of
Officer Doyle’s Statements
Mosley asserts that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence
regarding “drug activity” offered by Commonwealth witness, Officer Leo
Doyle. Officer Doyle was the first officer to appear at the scene to
investigate Latticlaw’s complaint, which led to him following, stopping and
arresting Mosley. Mosley claims that this hearsay testimony was highly
prejudicial because it negated his defense (that the passenger in the vehicle
was the one who controlled the drugs and not him). Mosley also contends
that admission of the testimony was reversible error as evidence of his guilt
was not overwhelming.
While certain out-of-court statements offered to explain a course of
police conduct are admissible because they are offered merely to show the
information upon which police acted, some out-of-court statements bearing
upon police conduct are inadmissible because they may be considered by the
jury as substantive evidence of guilt, especially where the accused’s right to
cross-examine and confront witnesses against him would be nullified.
Commonwealth v. Palsa, 555 A.2d 808, 810 (Pa. 1989).
Mosley’s arresting officer, Officer Leo Doyle, testified at trial regarding
a phone call he received from James Latticlaw, who indicated that Mosley
and a third party were “squatters” selling drugs out of Latticlaw’s apartment.
Officer Doyle also testified that when he arrived at the apartment complex to
-7-
J-A33005-14
investigate the matter, Latticlaw pointed at the black Cadillac driven by
Mosley, indicating to Officer Doyle that the occupants were the two men who
had been involved in drug activity at his apartment. Specifically, the
prosecutor questioned Officer Doyle at trial as follows:
Q: What area did they make a complaint? A specific type of
crime or of a specific incident that happened in a certain place?
A: Yes.
Q: What – what was that?
A: Drug activity.
Q: Drug activity. And what location?
A: At the 640 So. I forget the exact apartment, but James
Latticelaw[sic]’s apartment in 640 South Avenue, Presidential
Square.
* * *
A: I was – the van was in front of me with Sergeant Paylow and
Corporal Smith and I was behind the van and the black Cadillac
was coming towards me occupied by two black males. Okay.
And I also then observed James Latticelaw [sic], who I know
from running that area and having calls, pointing at the car
making a motion that that’s the car that was – that had the two
occupants in it that were why we were there.
N.T. Jury Trial, 9/16/13, at 122-24.
The trial court justified its decision to admit Officer Doyle’s testimony
as follows:
This [c]ourt properly admitted the statements, as they were
introduced by the prosecution to show why Officer Doyle went to
the Presidential Apartments and why his attention was drawn to
the black Cadillac, not to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
-8-
J-A33005-14
Trial Court Opinion, 5/15/14, at 6.
In Commonwealth v. Yates, 613 A.2d 542 (Pa. 1992), the defendant
was convicted of possession and possession with the intent to deliver. At
trial, two officers testified why they went to the specific area where the
defendant was arrested. In their testimony, the officers stated “that an
informant had notified them that a large black male, i.e. [defendant], was
‘dealing drugs’ at that location.” Id. at 543. The trial court admitted the
testimony, reasoning that the testimony explained the course of police
conduct and that, without the testimony, the jury would not have any way of
knowing why the police went to that location. Even though the trial court
gave the jury a cautionary instruction, the Supreme Court reversed the
defendant’s conviction and granted a new trial since the informant’s
statements were of a highly incriminating nature, contained specific
assertions of criminal conduct, and would have the unavoidable effect of
prejudice. Id.
Similarly, Mosely was charged and convicted of possession and
possession with the intent to deliver. Therefore, Officer Doyle’s statement
that he responded to Latticlaw’s apartment complex in response to a
complaint that defendant was conducting “drug activity” would likewise
unavoidably “have had a prejudicial impact.” Id. Moreover, unlike the trial
court in Yates, here the judge did not give the jury a cautionary instruction
despite the defense’s objections to the police officer’s alleged hearsay
statements. Where Officer Doyle’s testimony contained specific assertions of
-9-
J-A33005-14
criminal conduct, it was likely that the jury would interpret this testimony
from a police officer as substantive evidence of Mosley’s guilt; it also
deprived Mosley of his right to confront and cross-examine Latticlaw at trial.
Cf. Commonwealth v. Taggart, 997 A.2d 1189 (Pa. Super. 2010) (where
officer testified that defendant fit description of robber, and prosecutor cut
him off and elicited testimony that defendant was not one of robbers
described in flash information, defendant not deprived of opportunity to
confront informant who provided information in flash report).
However, “not all error at trial . . . entitles a [defendant] to a new
trial, and [t]he harmless error doctrine . . . reflects the reality that the
accused is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial[.]” Commonwealth v.
West, 834 A.2d 625, 634 (Pa. Super. 2003). Moreover, it is well
established that “an error which, when viewed by itself, is not minimal, may
nonetheless be determined harmless if properly admitted evidence is
substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence.”
Commonwealth v. Story, 383 A.2d 155, 165 (Pa. 1978).
Because there is relevant, cumulative evidence indicative of drug
activity, we find that the admission of this out-of-court statement, while an
abuse of the trial court’s discretion, was harmless error. Here, there was
independent evidence showing that Mosley threw bags of drugs from a car
he was driving, while being pursued by the police. Mosley’s possession of
two cell phones and U.S. currency on his person was consistent with drug
activity, while the weight and packaging of the drugs was indicative of
- 10 -
J-A33005-14
possession with the intent to deliver. See Commonwealth v. Watson, 945
A.2d 174 (Pa. Super. 2008) (harmless error exists where erroneously
admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which
was substantially similar to erroneously admitted evidence); see also
Commonwealth v. Williams (erroneous admission of evidence does not
necessarily entitle defendant to relief if error is harmless).
Failure to Suppress Text Messages
Mosley contends that Officers McDevitt and Doyle should have secured
a search warrant before reading the text messages on the cell phones.
Recently, in Commonwealth v. Stem, 96 A.3d 407 (Pa. Super. 2014), our
Court addressed this issue, relying upon the legal analysis and holding of the
United States Supreme Court in Riley v. Calfornia, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014).
In Riley, the Supreme Court determined that warrantless searches of a
cellular telephone conducted incident to a defendant’s arrest are
unconstitutional. Id. at 2495.
Here, there is no question that Officer McDevitt viewed the text
messages on the cell phones without first securing a warrant. The record is
unclear,10 however, regarding whether Officer McDevitt actually “searched”
____________________________________________
10
Compare N.T. Suppression Hearing, 4/18/13 (McDevitt testifying that he
did not click on any icon to view messages, but that they just “were popping
up ... coming up on the screen”) and id. at 83-84 (McDevitt testifying that
he did not have to do anything to view the messages on the cell phone)
with id. at 84 (McDevitt testifying that he didn’t recall whether he had to
swipe anything to view the text messages)
- 11 -
J-A33005-14
the phones (i.e., by scrolling through messages, swiping the phone on, or
otherwise pulling up the texts) like in Stem, where a police officer inspected
the cell phone after the defendant’s arrest, turned on the phone, hit the
picture icon and then searched cell phone data. Stem, 96 A.2d at 408.
However, even if Officer McDevitt improperly searched and viewed text
messages on the cell phones confiscated incident to Mosley’s arrest, we find
that because a valid warrant was subsequently issued to search the phones,
any improper viewing by Officer McDevitt was harmless error.
Our Supreme Court has held that “where there is probable cause
independent of police misconduct that is sufficient in itself to support the
issuance of a warrant, the police should not be placed in a worse situation
than they would have been absent the error or violation under which the
evidence was seized.” Commonwealth v. Brundidge, 620 A.2d 1115,
1119-20 (Pa. 1993).
There is a two-prong test governing the application of the
independent source doctrine: (1) whether the decision to seek a
warrant was prompted by what was seen during the initial
warrantless entry; and, (2) whether the magistrate was
informed at all of the information improperly obtained.
Commonwealth v. Ruey, 854 A.2d 560, 564-65 (Pa. Super. 2004).
Here, Sgt. Rutherford, who prepared the warrant, testified at the
suppression hearing that he never spoke with Officer McDevitt prior to or
during the process of securing the search warrant for the cellphones.
Moreover, while Sgt. Rutherford did speak with Mosley’s arresting officer,
Officer Doyle, who was aware of the content of the text messages and who
- 12 -
J-A33005-14
asked Sgt. Rutherford to prepare the warrant, the record shows that Officer
Doyle did not discuss the content of the text messages with Sgt. Rutherford.
N.T. Suppression Hearing, at 4/18/13, at 11-12, 56. Accordingly, we find
that there was probable cause independent of any alleged misconduct on the
part of Officer McDevitt in viewing the text messages prior to the issuance of
a warrant. This probable cause is sufficient in itself to support the
subsequent warrant secured by Sgt. Rutherford. Ruey, supra.
Admission of Text Messages at Trial
Authentication/Authorship
Mosley next asserts that the trial court improperly permitted testimony
at trial regarding text messages from the two cellphones taken from his
person, incident to his arrest, where the messages had never been
authenticated and constituted inadmissible hearsay.
Admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court
and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused
its discretion. Commonwealth v. Lilliock, 740 A.2d 237 (Pa. Super.
1999). Generally, the requirement of authentication or identification as a
condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence is satisfied by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its
proponent claims. Pa.R.E. 901(a).
With regard to “the admissibility of electronic communication, such
messages are to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as any other
document to determine whether or not there has been an adequate
- 13 -
J-A33005-14
foundational showing of their relevance and authenticity.” In the Interest
of F.P., 878 A.2d 91, 96 (Pa. Super. 2005). “[A]uthentication of electronic
communications, like documents, requires more than mere confirmation that
the number or address belonged to a particular person. Circumstantial
evidence, which tends to corroborate the identity of the sender, is required.”
Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996, 1005 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Koch).
In Commonwealth v. Koch, 106 A.3d 705 (Pa. 2014) (Koch II), an
equally divided Supreme Court11 affirmed our Court’s grant of a new trial,
wherein we held that: (1) the defendant’s text messages had not been
authenticated; (2) the messages were inadmissible hearsay that were not
offered for any reason other than to show the truth of the matter asserted
as to the content of the messages; and (3) admission of the unauthenticated
hearsay messages was not harmless error because the prejudicial effect of
the evidence was “so pervasive in tending to show that [defendant] took an
active role in an illicit [drug selling] enterprise that it [could not] be deemed
harmless.” Koch, 39 A.3d at 1005-07.
While the defendant in Koch admitted to owning the cell phone, and
the content of the messages on the phone indicated drug sale activity, it was
also conceded at trial that someone other than the defendant likely authored
____________________________________________
11
When a judgment of sentence is affirmed by an equally divided court, as
in the Koch case, no precedent is established and the holding is not binding
on other cases. Commonwealth v. James, 427 A.2d 148 (Pa. 1981).
- 14 -
J-A33005-14
at least some of the text messages. Even so, the mere assertion of
ownership of the phone did not establish that defendant was an active
correspondent in the particular drug sales text messages. Id. at 1003.
Moreover, confirmation that the number or address belongs to a particular
person also did not satisfy the authentication requirement under the Rules of
Evidence. Id. at 1005. Ultimately, the Court found that the Commonwealth
failed to establish, either by direct or circumstantial evidence, whether
defendant was the author of the texts. Id.
However, the Koch Court, referencing Rule 901, explained the ways in
which text messages could be authenticated by using: (1) first-hand
corroborating testimony from either the author or the sender; and/or (2)
circumstantial evidence, which includes distinctive characteristics like
information specifying the author-sender, reference to or correspondence
with relevant events preceding or following the communication in question;
or (3) any other facts or aspects of the communication that signify it to be
what its proponent claims it to be. Id. at 1002. Ultimately, the Court found
that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the text messages
where the cell phone’s physical proximity to the defendant at the time of her
arrest had no probative value with regard to whether she authored the
messages. Id. at 1005. Finally, because there was no evidence
substantiating that defendant had written the drug-related text messages, it
was improper to find that the identity of the sender had been corroborated.
Id.
- 15 -
J-A33005-14
As the Court in Koch acknowledged, the authentication inquiry will, by
necessity, “be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as any other document to
determine whether there has been an adequate foundation showing of its
relevance and authenticity.” Id. at 1003 (citation omitted). Instantly,
Mosley denied that he owned the two cell phones that were confiscated from
his person incident to his arrest. Moreover, there was no first-hand
corroborating testimony from a witness regarding the authenticity of the text
messages. Pa.R.E. 901(b)(1). In addition, there were two email addresses
attached to the cell phones, which could indicate that someone else had
access to or owned the phones. Finally, while several of the text messages
could be interpreted as indicative of drug dealing, none of the specific drug-
related communications identified Mosley. In fact, Donte (Mosley’s first
name) is only referenced in a few text messages dated months prior to the
instant investigation. None of the text messages sent from the Samsung
phone concerned drugs and there were no drug-related text messages sent
from the phones around the time of Mosley’s arrest.
Unlike the defendant in Koch, who had been charged as both an
accomplice and a conspirator, here Mosley was charged with purely
possessory offenses, including with the intent to deliver. Therefore, the
authorship of the texts is more critical to an authentication analysis under
the facts of this specific case. The fact that that the trial court failed to give
an authentication instruction to the jury further compounds the effect that
the issue of authorship has on the case. Here, the court generally instructed
- 16 -
J-A33005-14
the jury with regard to circumstantial evidence and the weight to be
accorded it in terms of evaluating whether Mosley was the transmitter or
receiver of the messages.12 However, the court did not instruct the jury that
in order to prove authentication, circumstantial evidence which tends to
corroborate the identity of the sender is required.
Instantly, the trial court found that the Commonwealth authenticated
the messages based on the following facts: (1) similar contacts in both
phones; (2) Donte Mosley’s mother (“Momma Dooks”) as a contact on both
phones; (3) mother of Mosley’s child texting similar messages on both
phones; (4) prior incoming texts referencing “Donte”. N.T. Jury Trial,
4/18/13, at 93. While these facts may support authentication, the court
does not take into account the fact that the texts referencing “Donte”
occurred more than one week prior to the current incident and that the texts
from Momma Dooks were sent in April, June and July of 2012 – weeks to
____________________________________________
12
Interestingly, the trial court stated:
In light of the testimony that’s been presented[,] I’m going to
say the authentication of electronic communications-like
documents, requires more than mere confirmation that the
number address belonged to a particular person. Circumstantial
evidence which tends to corroborate the identity of the sender is
required. I’m going to give that instruction.
N.T. Jury Trial, 9/17/13, at 101. Despite this statement, the court never
gave an instruction specifically referencing authentication of the messages;
defense counsel objected to this omission. Id. at 112.
- 17 -
J-A33005-14
months before Mosley’s arrest. Finally, and most relevant to the issue of
authorship, the court does not discuss the fact that there is no reference to
Donte in any of the drug-related text messages.
Like Koch, this is a close case regarding authorship and
authentication. Here, there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, tending
to substantiate that Mosley was the author of the drug-related text
messages. Moreover, no testimony was presented from persons who sent or
received the text messages. While there may be contextual clues with
regard to some texts, (i.e., one of the text messages is from Mosley’s
mother on July 26, 2012, just 18 days before his arrest, wishing Mosley a
happy birthday), there are no such clues in the drug-related texts messages
themselves tending to reveal the identity of the sender. Compare Koch,
supra (“reference to or correspondence with relevant events that precede or
follow the communication in question” may be a distinctive characteristic
under Rule 901(b)(4)). Additionally, the fact that a text message
corroborates the “crazy horse” stamp on one of the baggies of drugs
discarded by Mosley just prior to his arrest is merely circumstantial evidence
of authentication. Nothing in that specific message, however, indicates the
identity of the author or recipient of the message.
As the United States Supreme Court noted in Riley, supra, more
substantial privacy interests are at stake when digital data is in play:
Cell phones differ in both a quantitative sense from other objects
that might be kept on an arrestee’s person. The term “cell
phone” is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices are
- 18 -
J-A33005-14
in fact minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to
be used as a telephone. They could just as easily be called
cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders,
libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers.
Id. at 2489. Moreover, due to their immense capacity to store data, cell
phones “have several interrelated consequences for privacy[,]” including the
different types of data (i.e., addresses, notes, bank statements,
prescriptions, videos) that can be stored on them, the sheer amount of
information with regard to each type of stored data, and the fact that the
data stored on the cell phone can date back months or even years to the
original purchase of the phone (or even beyond that date with the ability to
transfer data from an older phone to a newer one). Id. Finally, due to the
fact that most people in the general population carry a cell phone on their
person throughout the day, “more than 90% of American adults who own a
cell phone keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of
their lives – from the mundane to the intimate.” Id. at 2490 (citation
omitted).
Bearing in mind the unique nature of a cell phone and its
pervasiveness in everyday society, we believe that in order to use content
from a cell phone as testimonial evidence in a criminal prosecution, the
Commonwealth must clearly prove its authentication. Because there was no
evidence, direct or circumstantial, clearly proving that Mosley was the author
of the drug-related text messages, or any corroborating witness testimony
regarding authenticity of the messages, we find that the trial court erred in
- 19 -
J-A33005-14
determining that the drug-related texts were authenticated properly in the
instant case.13
Hearsay
Even concluding that the text messages were not properly
authenticated, we must still address Mosley’s claims that the text messages
were inadmissible hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for
the truth of the matter asserted and is inadmissible unless it falls within an
exception to the hearsay rule. See Pa.R.E. 801(c); Pa.R.E. 802;
Commonwealth v. May, 898 A.2d 559, 565 (Pa. 2006). When this type of
evidence is in question, the distinction can be subtle between a statement
that, if admitted, would serve as affirmative and substantive evidence of the
accused’s guilt, and non-hearsay that may be admitted to establish some
other aspect of a case, such as motive or a witness’s relevant course of
conduct.
Here, the Commonwealth argues that the texts are admissible under
the hearsay exception set forth in Pa.R.E. 803(25), which states, “[t]he
statement is offered against an opposing party and: (A) was made by the
party in an individual or representative capacity; [or] (B) is one the party
manifested that it adopted or believed to be true.” Specifically, the
Commonwealth claims that Mosley’s responses to drug requests that were in
____________________________________________
13
We leave for another day the quantum and quality of evidence necessary
to “clearly” prove authentication of text messages.
- 20 -
J-A33005-14
the form of questions falls within the section 803(25) hearsay exception
because they were admitted to provide context for the outgoing text
messages (statements) he sent.
With respect to the issue of inadmissible hearsay in Koch, a detective,
who was a Commonwealth expert witness, testified that in his opinion the
text messages found on the defendant’s cell phone, in conjunction with other
factors (bongs, pipes, large amounts of cash, drug scales) were consistent
with drug sales that implicated the defendant, even though the detective
conceded that the author of the drug-related text messages could not be
definitively ascertained, that several texts were incomplete and that some
messages referenced the defendant in the third person. Koch, 39 A.3d at
1002-1003. In addition, the prosecutor acknowledged that the purpose of
the text evidence was to show that defendant’s phone was used in drug
transactions, and, therefore, that it makes it more probable than not that
when the defendant possessed the drugs she did so with the intent to deliver
it as opposed to for personal use. Id. at 1005-06. As a result, the Court
concluded that the only relevance of the evidence was to prove the truth of
the matter asserted – that there were drug-related text messages on
defendant’s cell phone and, therefore, that admission of the messages was
an abuse of discretion and not harmless error. Id. at 1006-07.
Similarly, here Sgt. Rutherford testified that there were several text
messages on the cell phones that, in his professional opinion, appeared to
involve drug trafficking or setting up deals. N.T. Jury Trial, 9/17/13, at 55.
- 21 -
J-A33005-14
He also testified that drug dealers often carry two phones, one personal and
one for business, and that cell phones are the main mode of communication
in the drug dealing trade. Id. at 55-56, 41. However, Sgt. Rutherford
testified that there was no identifying information regarding Mosley in any of
the drug-related texts on either phone. Id. at 59-62, 71. On direct
examination, Sgt. Rutherford testified that narcotics sales are frequently set
up with text messaging, id. at 26, and that because there were similar
numbers on both cell phones and some of the text messages included
Mosely’s name, such facts were consistent with a pattern of drug sales.
On direct examination by the prosecution, Sgt. Rutherford testified
that the phones contained text messages from various people indicating
“there was a sale of narcotics, there was a request for different types of
narcotics, drugs, meet, locations, places to meet, things like that.” Id. at
29. Sergeant Rutherford consistently testified to common street terms used
in illegal drug sales, the manner in which dealers often stamp their bags of
drugs with symbols and wording, and that text messages are often sent to a
phone in an attempt to buy drugs. Ultimately, the prosecutor asked Sgt.
Rutherford if, based on his expertise, he had formed an opinion that the
drugs and cell phones confiscated from Mosley were associated with the
distribution of drugs, or just mere possession for personal use, to which he
replied:
Yes. A combination. I take into account everything, the totality
of everything. You know, a combination of the packaging, the
text messages, this is consistent with someone who is involved
- 22 -
J-A33005-14
with the sale of narcotics. And in this case, different types of
narcotics.
* * *
A lot of times dealers – I mean, especially with the heroin
because the weights can really affect severe jail terms. They
don’t like to carry a whole lot. I mean, they’d rather have less.
A lot of times you’ll see – in some of the text messages he says
what do you need. What do you need because sometimes –
depending on where they set up their operation, they may only
come out with what you ask for.
Id. at 46, 52.
Taking into account the content of the texts in this case, as well as the
erroneously admitted evidence of Officer Doyle’s statement regarding drug
activity, we conclude that under Koch the admission of the messages was
an abuse of discretion where the texts were admitted to prove the truth of
the matter asserted – that Mosley possessed the drugs with the intent to
deliver. However, if we discount the improperly admitted text messages and
Officer Doyle’s statement, we conclude that there is substantially similar
evidence showing that Mosley possessed the drugs with the intent to deliver.
See infra at 23-24. Therefore, we find that the improper admission of the
statement and text messages was harmless error, did not unduly prejudice
Mosley, and still resulted in a fair trial. See Watson, supra; West, supra;
Story, supra.
Sufficiency & Weight of the Evidence
Mosley contends that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he
committed the crimes of possession and possession with intent to deliver.
- 23 -
J-A33005-14
Specifically, he argues that the passenger in the Cadillac was just as likely to
have possessed the drugs as he was and that the Commonwealth failed to
show that he exercised conscious dominion over the drugs.
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must
determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth as verdict winner, together with all reasonable inferences
therefrom, the trier of fact could have found that each and every element of
the crimes charged was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Randall, 758 A.2d 669, 674 (Pa. Super. 2000).
First, Mosley was driving the car from which two clear plastic bags
(each containing multiple baggies within) were thrown out of the driver’s
side window. Second, no drugs, paraphernalia or other incriminating drug
evidence was found on the passenger in the Cadillac. Third, expert
testimony by Sgt. Rutherford confirmed that the packaging, weight and type
of drugs, in addition to the $117.00 and cell phones found on Mosley’s
person at the time of his arrest, are all indicative of possessing drugs with
the intent to deliver. Accordingly, we find that there was sufficient evidence
to support Mosley’s conviction for possession and possession with the intent
to deliver. Cf. Koch, supra at 1007 (Commonwealth failed to present
overwhelming properly admitted evidence regarding defendant’s
involvement in drug transactions; prosecution’s case consisted of text
message evidence and that drugs were found in defendant’s shared
- 24 -
J-A33005-14
bedroom, in common areas of home, and no drugs or money found on
defendant’s person).
Next, Mosley contends that the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence, where the actual possessor of the drugs thrown from the car was
not and could not be determined. We disagree.
When a defendant challenges the weight of the evidence, relief in the
form of a new trial may be granted only where the verdict shocks one’s
sense of justice. This Court reviews the trial court’s exercise of discretion in
ruling on the weight claim, not the underlying question of whether the
verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Commonwealth v.
Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. 2003); Commonwealth v. Rabold,
920 A.2d 857, 860-61 (Pa. Super. 2007), aff’d 951 A.2d 329 (Pa. 2008). In
reviewing the trial court's decision concerning the weight of the evidence, an
appellate court is not passing on the credibility of witnesses.
Commonwealth v. Woody, 679 A.2d 817, 819-20 (Pa. Super. 1996). This
is a function that is solely within the province of the finder of fact which is
free to believe all, part of none of the evidence. Id.
Here, the jury heard the evidence that Mosely was the driver of the
black Cadillac, that two bags later identified as containing drugs were
discarded from the driver’s side window while the vehicle was being pursued
by the police, and that $117 in U.S. currency, and two cell phones were
found on his person upon being stopped and searched. A Commonwealth
expert testified that this evidence was indicative of drug possession and
- 25 -
J-A33005-14
possession with the intent to deliver. Accordingly, we find that given the
evidence presented to prove that Mosley committed these possessory
offenses, the verdict does not shock one’s sense of justice; the court’s
decision to deny the challenge to the weight of the evidence is not contrary
to law, manifestly unreasonable or the result of bias, prejudice, partiality or
ill-will. Champney, supra.
Reopen Suppression Hearing
Mosley next contends that the trial court improperly denied his
request, at the end of the suppression hearing, to reopen the record to
permit him to introduce testimony regarding the operation of and access to
the cell phones. Specifically, Mosley asserted that because defense counsel
was surprised at the hearing by Officer McDevitt’s testimony regarding the
operation of the cell phone, counsel needed proof that in order to view the
texts, some affirmative action by the officer (such as swiping or unlocking
with a password) needed to occur. Having found that any improper viewing
of the text messages, by Officer McDevitt, on the cell phones confiscated
incident to Mosley’s arrest was harmless error in light of the subsequently
and independently secured search warrant, we find this issue moot on
appeal.
Alleyne Sentencing Issue
Finally, Mosley contends that the trial court’s application of the
mandatory minimum to his sentence is illegal because the United States
Supreme Court’s decision, Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151
- 26 -
J-A33005-14
(2013), has rendered the sentencing scheme under section 7508
constitutionally suspect. Additionally, he claims that even though the jury
used a special verdict to allow the factfinder to determine the weight of the
drugs possessed, by a reasonable doubt, the verdict still violates section
7508 and its plain legislative intent. We agree.
First, we must address the Commonwealth’s contention that Mosley
has waived this issue on appeal due to his failure to include an Alleyne-
based sentence challenge at sentencing, in his post-sentence motion, or in
his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.
In Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108, 118 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en
banc),14 our Court observed that “where [a]pplication of a mandatory
minimum sentence gives rise to illegal sentence concerns, even where the
sentence is within the statutory limits[,] [sic] [l]egality of sentence
questions are not waivable” and may be raised sua sponte by this Court.15
____________________________________________
14
In Watley, the defendant did not even raise his Alleyne argument on
appeal. Rather, this Court raised the issue sua sponte.
15
We are aware that our Supreme Court has accepted allowance of appeal
on the issue of whether Alleyne relates to the legality of sentence, stating
as the issue follows:
Whether a challenge to a sentence pursuant to Alleyne v.
United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), implicates the legality of
the sentence and is therefore non-waivable.
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 93 A.3d 806 (Pa. 2014). However, until the
Supreme Court overrules the non-waivability language found in Watley, we
are bound by that case and its progeny.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
- 27 -
J-A33005-14
Because Mosley’s claim falls within this narrow ambit of cases and,
therefore, is not subject to traditional issue preservation, we will address its
merits.
In Alleyne, supra, a case concerning the application of a federal
mandatory minimum statute, the Supreme Court held that any fact that
triggers an increase in the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime is
necessarily an element of the offense. Id. at 2163-64. The Supreme Court
reasoned that "the core crime and the fact triggering the mandatory
minimum sentence together constitute a new, aggravated crime" and
consequently, the Sixth Amendment requires that every element of the
crime, including any fact that triggers the mandatory minimum, must be
alleged in the charging document, submitted to a jury, and found beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id. at 2160-64.
In Commonwealth v. Munday, 78 A.3d 661 (Pa. Super. 2013), our
Court discussed the application of Alleyne to this Commonwealth’s
mandatory minimum statutes:
This term, in Alleyne, the United States Supreme Court
expressly overruled Harris, holding that any fact that increases
the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime "is 'an element'
that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a
reasonable doubt." Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2155, 2163. The
Alleyne majority reasoned that "[w]hile Harris limited Apprendi
to facts increasing the statutory maximum, the principle applied
in Apprendi applies with equal force to facts increasing the
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
- 28 -
J-A33005-14
mandatory minimum." [Id.] at 2160. This is because "[i]t is
impossible to dissociate the floor of a sentencing range from the
penalty affixed to the crime[,]" and "it is impossible to dispute
that facts increasing the legally prescribed floor aggravate the
punishment." Id. at 2161. Thus, "[t]his reality demonstrates
that the core crime and the fact triggering the mandatory
minimum sentence together constitute a new, aggravated crime,
each element of which must be submitted to the jury." Id.
Id. at 665. In Munday, the Court held that even where a statute
specifically stated that its “provisions . . . shall not be an element of the
crime,”16 the sentencing factor [or factual predicate] at issue still had to be
determined by the factfinder, beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 666. Thus,
the Court found that the defendant’s sentence, which included the
mandatory minimum sentence under section 9712.1 (sentences for certain
drug offenses committed with firearms), violated the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment and the jury trial guarantee of the Sixth
Amendment. As a result, the Court vacated the defendant’s judgment of
sentence and remanded for resentencing. Id. at 667.
Instantly, Mosley was sentenced pursuant to the mandatory minimum
statute, section 7508 of the Sentencing Code, which states, in pertinent
part:
____________________________________________
16
We note that section 7508 contains identical language in its “proof at
sentencing” subsection as that found in other mandatory minimum statutes.
See also 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317(b) & 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1(c) (identical proof of
sentencing provision language).
- 29 -
J-A33005-14
(a) General rule. --Notwithstanding any other provisions of
this or any other act to the contrary, the following
provisions shall apply:
(3) A person who is convicted of violating section
13(a)(14), (30) or (37) of The Controlled Substance, Drug,
Device and Cosmetic Act where the controlled substance is
coca leaves or is any salt, compound, derivative or
preparation of coca leaves or is any salt, compound,
derivative or preparation which is chemically equivalent or
identical with any of these substances or is any mixture
containing any of these substances except decocainized
coca leaves or extracts of coca leaves which (extracts) do
not contain cocaine or ecgonine shall, upon conviction, be
sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment
and a fine as set forth in this subsection:
(ii) when the aggregate weight of the compound
or mixture containing the substance involved is
at least ten grams and less than 100 grams;
three years in prison and a fine of $ 15,000 or such larger
amount as is sufficient to exhaust the assets utilized in
and the proceeds from the illegal activity; however, if at
the time of sentencing the defendant has been
convicted of another drug trafficking offense: five years
in prison and $ 30,000 or such larger amount as is
sufficient to exhaust the assets utilized in and the
proceeds from the illegal activity[.]
(b) Proof of sentencing. --Provisions of this section shall not be
an element of the crime. Notice of the applicability of this section
to the defendant shall not be required prior to conviction, but
reasonable notice of the Commonwealth's intention to proceed
under this section shall be provided after conviction and before
sentencing. The applicability of this section shall be determined
at sentencing. The court shall consider evidence presented at
trial, shall afford the Commonwealth and the defendant an
opportunity to present necessary additional evidence and shall
determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, if this section is
applicable.
18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(3)(ii) (emphasis added), (b) (emphasis added).
Therefore the factual predicate of section 7508 is that the aggregate weight
- 30 -
J-A33005-14
of the prohibited substance possessed by the defendant be at least 10 and
no more than 100 grams.
In Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478 (Pa. Super. 2014),
the trial court applied the mandatory minimum provisions of section 7508 to
the defendant’s sentence. On appeal, our Court held that because the
weight of the drugs possessed by the defendant had not been determined by
the fact-finder, nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant’s
sentence was illegal and required vacation. Specifically, the Court noted
that section 7508(a) cannot be constitutionally applied in light of Alleyne, or
it would result in an illegal sentence. Similarly, in Commonwealth v.
Fennell, 105 A.3d 13 (Pa. Super. 2014), where the defendant stipulated to
the weight of the drugs for purposes of applying the mandatory minimum to
his sentence, our Court also concluded that section 7508(b), which permits
the trial court to find the necessary elements by a preponderance of the
evidence, was not severable from the rest of the statute. The Court
concluded that stipulating to the drug’s weight, in effect, allows a trial court
to impose a mandatory minimum outside the statutory framework, where
such procedures are solely within the province of the factfinder. Id. at *20.
As a result the Court deemed section 7508 unconstitutional and that any
mandatory minimum imposed under this statue is illegal. Id. at *15-18.
- 31 -
J-A33005-14
Although the principles of Alleyne and it progeny apply to Mosley’s
section 7508 mandatory minimum sentence, the sentencing procedure in the
instant case differs from that employed in Thompson and Fennell.17 As a
result, the Commonwealth contends that Mosley’s sentence should not be
deemed illegal. We disagree.
Here, the jury was presented with a special verdict form that included
the specific issue:
If you find the defendant guilty of Count 4(c): possession with
intent to deliver, do you find the defendant guilty of possession
with intent to deliver greater than 10 grams of cocaine?
Jury Verdict Form, 9/17/13 (emphasis added). Therefore, the issue
regarding the weight of the drugs possessed by Mosley appears to have
been determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the jury as factfinder.
However, our Court has held that trial courts lack the authority to employ
special verdict slips in cases involving mandatory minimum sentences that
implicate Alleyne. See Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa.
Super. 2014); Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(en banc).
____________________________________________
17
See also Commonwealth v. Vargas, 2014 PA Super. 289 (filed
December 31, 2014) (relying on Fennell which held section 7508
unconstitutional, as applied in light of Alleyne, and that even though
defendant stipulated to weight of drugs, sentence applying mandatory
minimum was illegal).
- 32 -
J-A33005-14
In Valentine, the defendant had been convicted by a jury of robbery
and sentenced to 5-10 years’ imprisonment, which included application of
two mandatory minimum sentencing provisions, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9712 (visible
possession of firearm) and 9713 (offense committed in/near public
transportation). Valentine, 101 A.3d at 804-805. Similar to the instant
case, the trial court presented the jury with a special verdict slip, asking it to
determine whether the factual predicates had been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id. On appeal, the defendant, like Mosley, raised the
issue whether the mandatory minimum sentence imposed was illegal since
the provisions of the sentencing statutes were rendered unconstitutional in
light of Alleyne. In coming to its decision, the Valentine Court found
Newman, supra, instructive, which also reviewed the constitutionality of
section 9712 and determined that the factual predicate of that statute
(visible possession of firearm) must be presented to the factfinder and
determined beyond a reasonable doubt. Notably, the Newman Court
declined to accept the Commonwealth’s proposed remedy to have the case
remanded for a sentencing jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt
whether the Commonwealth had proven the factual predicates of section
9712.
In reaching its holding, the Newman Court stated:
The Commonwealth's suggestion that we remand for a
sentencing jury would require this court to manufacture whole
cloth a replacement enforcement mechanism for Section 9712.1;
in other words, the Commonwealth is asking us to legislate. We
recognize that in the prosecution of capital cases in
- 33 -
J-A33005-14
Pennsylvania, there is a similar, bifurcated process where the
jury first determines guilt in the trial proceeding (the guilt
phase) and then weighs aggravating and mitigating factors in
the sentencing proceeding (the penalty phase). However, this
mechanism was created by the General Assembly and is
enshrined in our statutes at 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 9711. We find that it
is manifestly the province of the General Assembly to determine
what new procedures must be created in order to impose
mandatory minimum sentences in Pennsylvania following
Alleyne. We cannot do so.
Newman, 99 A.3d at 102. Ultimately, the Valentine Court applied the
holding of Newman to conclude that “the trial court performed an
impermissible legislative function by creating a new procedure in an effort to
impose the mandatory minimum sentences in compliance with Alleyne.”
Valentine, 101 A.3d at 811. Because Newman makes it clear that it is the
General Assembly’s function to determine what new procedures must be
created to impose mandatory minimum sentences in this Commonwealth,
the trial court exceeded its authority by asking the jury to determine the
factual predicates of sections 9712(c) and 9713(c). Id. at 812.
Similarly, here the trial court exceeded its authority by permitting the
jury, via a special verdict slip, to determine beyond a reasonable doubt the
factual predicate of section 7508 – whether Mosley possessed cocaine that
weighed greater than 10 grams. Even though the jury responded “yes” to
the inquiry, the trial court performed an impermissible legislative function by
creating a new procedure in an effort to impose the mandatory minimum
sentence in compliance with Alleyne. Accordingly, we must vacate the
defendant’s judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing without the
- 34 -
J-A33005-14
mandatory minimum. Valentine, supra. See also Commonwealth v.
Ferguson, 2015 Pa. Super. 1 (Pa. Super. 2015) (defendant’s sentence
vacated and remanded for resentencing without consideration of mandatory
minimum sentences where trial court lacked authority to have jury
determine, via verdict slip, factual predicate under section 9712).
Convictions affirmed. Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/20/2015
- 35 -