Com. v. Jackson, M.

J-S44044-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MONTY WILLIAM JACKSON
Appellant No. 481 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 13, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0001994-2014
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 19, 2015
Monty William Jackson appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County after a jury found
him guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia.1 Upon careful review, we
affirm.
The trial court has set forth the facts of this matter as follows:
On November 1, 2014, [Trooper Jonathon Monkelis of the
Pennsylvania State Police] was on routine patrol when he came
into contact with [Jackson] and noticed that he appeared to be
“under the influence of something.” As [Trooper] Monkelis was
doing a pat down of [Jackson], he felt and removed a syringe
with a needle from [Jackson]’s pant leg. An examination of
[Jackson] revealed track marks on his arms which, in the expert
opinion of [Trooper] Monkelis, were caused by injecting heroin or
other substances.
____________________________________________
1
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32).
J-S44044-15
The syringe and needle found in [Jackson]’s pant pocket were
sent to Pennsylvania State Police Crime Lab for testing. Leonard
McCoy, a forensic scientist at the Lab, and recognized by the
Court as an expert in the field of analysis of controlled
substances, tested the contents of the syringe at issue. In his
expert opinion, the syringe contained a compound called
monoacetel morphine, a derivative of opium. As such, it was a
Schedule II Controlled Substance.
Trial Court Opinion, 5/12/15, at 2 (internal citations omitted).
On March 3, 2015, at the conclusion of a one-day trial, the jury
convicted Jackson of possession of drug paraphernalia. On March 13, 2015,
the court sentenced him to 6 to 12 months’ incarceration. On March 20,
2015, Jackson filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the sufficiency of
the evidence.
With respect to Jackson’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence:
As a general matter, our standard of review of sufficiency claims
requires that we evaluate the record in the light most favorable
to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all
reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. 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.
Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a
mathematical certainty. Any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is
to be resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak
and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact
can be drawn from the combined circumstances.
Commonwealth v. Lynch, 72 A.3d 706, 707-08 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act prohibits the
possession of drug paraphernalia as follows:
§ 780-113. Prohibited acts; penalties
-2-
J-S44044-15
(a) The following acts and the causing thereof within the
Commonwealth are hereby prohibited:
...
(32) The use of, or possession with intent to use, drug
paraphernalia for the purpose of planting, propagating,
cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing,
compounding, converting, producing, processing,
preparing, testing, analyzing, packing, repacking, storing,
containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling or
otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled
substance in violation of this act.
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32).
Drug paraphernalia is defined as
all equipment, products and materials of any kind which are
used, intended for use or designed for use in . . . injecting,
inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body a
controlled substance in violation of this act.
...
(11) Hypodermic syringes, needles and other objects used,
intended for use, or designed for use in parenterally
injected controlled substances into the human body.
35 P.S. § 780-102(b)(11).
Jackson claims the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the syringe was used for injecting a controlled
substance. Jackson also argues that the syringe cannot be connected to him
because he was never given a drug test and the syringe was not examined
for fingerprints.
First, syringes and needles are specifically included within the
definition of drug paraphernalia. 35 P.S. § 780-102(b)(11); see
Commonwealth v. Rosenfelt, 662 A.2d 1131, 1137 (Pa. Super. 1995)
-3-
J-S44044-15
(noting syringes are statutorily defined as prohibited drug paraphernalia).
Moreover, the Commonwealth presented expert testimony to prove that the
syringe was in fact used with controlled substances and lab testing showed
that the syringe tested positive for heroin residue.
Second, Jackson’s claim that he is not connected to the syringe and
needle is wholly frivolous. The syringe and needle were found in Jackson’s
pocket, which plainly establishes possession of the items. Jackson’s
possession of the syringe and needle laced with heroin residue satisfies the
elements of possession of drug paraphernalia. Commonwealth v. Wright,
846 A.2d 730, 738 (Pa. Super. 2004) (holding evidence was sufficient to
establish guilt when, upon arrest, police searched and found drugs and other
paraphernalia in defendant’s pockets). Further, Trooper Monkelis testified
that Jackson appeared to be under the influence and had “track marks” on
his arm, which is evidence that he had used syringes and needles at some
point prior to his arrest.
For the foregoing reasons, the evidence, when viewed in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, is sufficient to sustain
the verdict. Lynch, supra.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
-4-
J-S44044-15
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/19/2015
-5-