Commonwealth v. Belani

J-A12002-14
2014 PA Super 211COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
JACK BELANI, :
:
Appellee : No. 943 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Order Entered March 1, 2013,
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Criminal Division, at No. CP-51-CR-0012541-2010.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
WENJUE LIU, :
:
Appellee : No. 957 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Order Entered March 1, 2013,
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Criminal Division, at No. CP-51-CR-0012540-2010.
BEFORE: SHOGAN, STABILE and PLATT*, JJ.
OPINION BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 25, 2014
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the
orders entered on March 1, 2013, precluding the admission of DNA evidence
__________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A12002-14
at the trials of Appellees, Jack Belani and Wenjue Liu. 1 We are constrained
to reverse.
evidence that would tie Appellees to a robbery during which Appellee Liu
shot the victim in the leg. The trial court summarized the facts as follows:
[O]n July 24, 2008, [Appellees], along with another co-
armed robbery. The Commonwealth further alleges that both
Belani and Liu were armed and were wearing stockings over
their heads, and that Liu ultimately shot the complainant in the
leg. Belani was not arrested until November 5, 2009. Liu was
arrested the following day. After a preliminary hearing on
October 7, 2010, [Appellees] were held for court on robbery,
aggravated assault, conspiracy, and related charges arising from
the July 24, 2008 incident. After a number of continuance
on July 2, 2012, the Commonwealth presented the court with a
purposes of conducting a DNA analysis and comparison. See
1
The Commonwealth may appeal an interlocutory order suppressing
evidence when it provides a certification with its notice of appeal that the
order terminates or substantially handicaps the prosecution.
Commonwealth v. Whitlock, 69 A.3d 635, 636 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(citing Pa.R.A.P. 311(d)). In Commonwealth v. Gordon, 673 A.2d 866(Pa. 1996), our Supreme Court held that the Commonwealth may appeal the
grant of a defense motion in limine which excludes Commonwealth evidence
and has the effect of substantially handicapping the prosecution. As the trial
court ruling excludes Commonwealth evidence, and the Commonwealth has
certified that the effect of the ruling substantially handicaps the prosecution,
we find that this appeal is properly before this Court. Commonwealth v.
Moser, 999 A.2d 602 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citing, inter alia, Commonwealth
v. Matis
-
faith certification; we are not permitted to conduct such an inquiry. Moser,
999 A.2d at 605 n.2 (collecting cases).
-2-
J-A12002-14
July 2, 2012 Order. The court signed the order that same day.
On September 6, 2012, at the trial readiness conference, the
Commonwealth advised the court that it would not be prepared
to proceed to trial on September 10th because Belani had
submitted his DNA sample later than expected. The court
granted the continuance request and listed the matters for a
waiver trial on December 14, 2012.2
2
The case was no longer being called as a jury trial.
On the December 14, 2012 trial date, defense counsel
argued two motions. The first was a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600(g). The court
denied the motions to dismiss on March 1, 2013. The second
motion was an oral motion made in the alternative to preclude
the Commonwealth from introducing DNA evidence at trial. The
report as few as three days before trial and had not been
afforded sufficient time to have their own expert(s) review the
findings. The Commonwealth countered that it had been duly
diligent in ensuring that the DNA analysis would be finalized in
time for trial and had forwarded the resulting findings to defense
counsel the day after receiving them.
The court also was informed for the first time on December
14th that the Commonwealth was demanding a jury trial. The
advisement and scheduled a January 28, 2013 hearing. The
purpose of the hearing was to afford the Commonwealth the
opportunity to present testimony explaining the delay in
finalizing the DNA analysis. On January 28th, the hearing was
continued to February 7, 2013, because the Commonwealth had
subpoenaed its witnesses for the wrong time. The testimony
presented on February 7, 2013[,] revealed the following:
The samples submitted for screening and DNA analysis
were taken from three sources: (1) stockings recovered in July
2008, (2) two swabs from Liu, and (3) two swabs from Belani.
The stockings were submitted to the Evidence Intake
Department of
Science Center on August 2, 2012. They were analyzed by
Forensic Scientist Francis Pabayatty of the Trace Lab division on
-3-
J-A12002-14
Evidence Intake Department on August 2, 2012. The swabs
were then assigned to Mr. Pabayatty on August 24, 2012, and he
analyzed them on August 28, 2012. Belani, however, did not
submit his swabs to the Evidence Intake Department until
s samples on
September 5, 2012. Mr. Pabayatty had completed his analysis
of all swabs by September 5th, and entered an electronic request
that a member of the DNA Identification Lab review the matters.
In the meantime, Mr. Pabayatty prepared a report of his own
findings, which was reviewed by his department and finalized on
November 17, 2012. Mr. Pabayatty testified that nothing in his
paperwork indicated that the cases had been marked as
Forensic Scientist David Hawkins of the DNA Identification
Lab was assigned to the matters on October 9, 2012, and began
his work on that assignment on October 17, 2012. Mr. Hawkins
testified that he is capable of beginning his analysis once the
Trace Lab has completed its preliminary analysis, and was
September 5, 2012 preliminary findings and his own assignment.
Mr. Hawkins was told that the trial date was December 14, 2012,
and was confident that he would be able to provide his analysis
by that time, as the process generally takes eight to twelve
weeks. Mr. Hawkins completed his findings and preliminary
report by November 9, 2012. The final review of the findings
and report was completed on December 6, 2012. Mr. Hawkins
forwarded th
day. Mr. Hawkins could not point to any notation in his file that
testify, however, that he spoke with the assigned Assistant
District Attorney Andrei Govorov on or about November 27,
2012, and was asked to complete his report by the end of the
following week (i.e., one week in advance of trial).
to exclude the DNA evidence.
Trial Court Opinion, 8/22/13, at 1 4 (internal citations and some footnotes
omitted). The Commonwealth filed timely notices of appeal and
-4-
J-A12002-14
concurrently filed statements pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) despite the fact
that the trial court had not yet ordered them. On December 6, 2013, we
cases on appeal.2
The Commonwealth presents the following single issue for our review:
Did the lower court err when, in contravention of
controlling precedent, it excluded DNA evidence on the ground
that testing had not been performed further in advance of trial?
basic level, is that if the Commonwealth had sought testing earlier, it would
Commonwealth failed to disclose its expert findings to defense counsel
sufficiently in advance of trial, such that defense counsel did not have time
to secure their own experts to review the evidence. The court determined
that the prosecutor understood that the DNA analysis would take six to eight
weeks. Based upon that timeline, the trial court concluded the results
should have been finalized and disclosed by late October or early November,
2012, thereby allowing defense counsel sufficient time to retain their own
experts to conduct an independent review and analysis before the December
2
As the trial court has filed identical Pa.R.A.P. 1925 (a) opinions in both
cases on the same date, our reference to the trial court opinion is
-5-
J-A12002-14
14, 2012 bench trial. Trial Court Opinion, 8/22/13, at 5. Instead, the final
reports were not completed until December 6, 2012, more than twelve
weeks after submission of the final sample. Id. Although the
when it received them on December 6th, the defense did not have sufficient
time to secure its own expert analysis. Id. at 5 6.
We have reviewed the record, including the notes of testimony, and
considered the arguments of the parties, the reasoning of the trial court, and
the applicable law. For the reasons which follow, we reverse.
In evaluating the denial or grant of a motion in limine, our standard of
review is well-
deny a motion in limine, we apply an evidentiary abuse of discretion
standard of review. Moser
unless that ruling reflects manifest unreasonableness, or partiality,
prejudice, bias, or ill-
Commonwealth v. Huggins, 68 A.3d 962, 966 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal
denied, 80 A.3d 775 (Pa. 2013); Commonwealth v. Minich, 4 A.3d 1063(Pa. Super. 2010) (citations and quotations omitted). If the evidentiary
-6-
J-A12002-14
July 2, 2012 Order. The court signed the order that same day.
On September 6, 2012, at the trial readiness conference, the
Commonwealth advised the court that it would not be prepared
to proceed to trial on September 10th because Belani had
submitted his DNA sample later than expected. The court
granted the continuance request and listed the matters for a
waiver trial on December 14, 2012.2
2
The case was no longer being called as a jury trial.
On the December 14, 2012 trial date, defense counsel
argued two motions. The first was a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600(g). The court
denied the motions to dismiss on March 1, 2013. The second
motion was an oral motion made in the alternative to preclude
the Commonwealth from introducing DNA evidence at trial. The
report as few as three days before trial and had not been
afforded sufficient time to have their own expert(s) review the
findings. The Commonwealth countered that it had been duly
diligent in ensuring that the DNA analysis would be finalized in
time for trial and had forwarded the resulting findings to defense
counsel the day after receiving them.
The court also was informed for the first time on December
14th that the Commonwealth was demanding a jury trial. The
advisement and scheduled a January 28, 2013 hearing. The
purpose of the hearing was to afford the Commonwealth the
opportunity to present testimony explaining the delay in
finalizing the DNA analysis. On January 28th, the hearing was
continued to February 7, 2013, because the Commonwealth had
subpoenaed its witnesses for the wrong time. The testimony
presented on February 7, 2013[,] revealed the following:
The samples submitted for screening and DNA analysis
were taken from three sources: (1) stockings recovered in July
2008, (2) two swabs from Liu, and (3) two swabs from Belani.
The stockings were submitted to the Evidence Intake
Department of
Science Center on August 2, 2012. They were analyzed by
Forensic Scientist Francis Pabayatty of the Trace Lab division on
-3-
J-A12002-14
Evidence Intake Department on August 2, 2012. The swabs
were then assigned to Mr. Pabayatty on August 24, 2012, and he
analyzed them on August 28, 2012. Belani, however, did not
submit his swabs to the Evidence Intake Department until
s samples on
September 5, 2012. Mr. Pabayatty had completed his analysis
of all swabs by September 5th, and entered an electronic request
that a member of the DNA Identification Lab review the matters.
In the meantime, Mr. Pabayatty prepared a report of his own
findings, which was reviewed by his department and finalized on
November 17, 2012. Mr. Pabayatty testified that nothing in his
paperwork indicated that the cases had been marked as
Forensic Scientist David Hawkins of the DNA Identification
Lab was assigned to the matters on October 9, 2012, and began
his work on that assignment on October 17, 2012. Mr. Hawkins
testified that he is capable of beginning his analysis once the
Trace Lab has completed its preliminary analysis, and was
September 5, 2012 preliminary findings and his own assignment.
Mr. Hawkins was told that the trial date was December 14, 2012,
and was confident that he would be able to provide his analysis
by that time, as the process generally takes eight to twelve
weeks. Mr. Hawkins completed his findings and preliminary
report by November 9, 2012. The final review of the findings
and report was completed on December 6, 2012. Mr. Hawkins
forwarded th
day. Mr. Hawkins could not point to any notation in his file that
testify, however, that he spoke with the assigned Assistant
District Attorney Andrei Govorov on or about November 27,
2012, and was asked to complete his report by the end of the
following week (i.e., one week in advance of trial).
to exclude the DNA evidence.
Trial Court Opinion, 8/22/13, at 1 4 (internal citations and some footnotes
omitted). The Commonwealth filed timely notices of appeal and
-4-
J-A12002-14
continuance to obtain their own expert analysis, it was error to completely
Further, the Commonwealth argues that Commonwealth v. Smith,
599 A.2d 1350 (Pa. Super. 1991), abrogated in part on other grounds by
Commonwealth v. Malinowski, 671 A.2d 674 (Pa. 1996), is directly on
point. The Commonwealth asserts that in Smith, the Commonwealth
obtained its DNA e
excluded the DNA evidence because the Commonwealth had not diligently
sought to have the testing performed earlier. On appeal, this Court
reversed, holding that the mere failure to have the testing performed earlier
did not violate Pa.R.Crim.P. 305, and that even if there had been a violation,
a continuance, not exclusion of the evidence, would have been the proper
defense herein did not have sufficient time to secure additional expert
analysis before the start of trial on December 14, 2012, directly contradicts
Smith.
Appellees respond that the trial court properly excluded the DNA
evidence. They maintain that the exclusion was not based solely on the
its failure to act with due diligence in expediting the results of the analysis.
-9-
J-A12002-14
Our review of the record does not support a lack of due diligence on the part
of the Commonwealth.
At the December 14, 2012 hearing,3 when Appellees objected to the
admission of the DNA report that they received December 7, 2012, the
prosecutor noted that when the trial court signed the order requiring
Appellees to provide DNA samples on July 2, 2012, neither defense counsel
objected. N.T., 12/14/12, at 8. The prosecutor stated:
As your Honor recalls, I had Your Honor sign the order on July
2nd, 2012, for both Liu and Belani to submit themselves for
swabs for DNA analysis purposes. There were no objections by
either defense attorneys . . . .
* * *
In this case there was no objection raised, neither by [counsel
for Appellee Belani], neither by [counsel for Appellee Liu]. There
was no contest. There was no argument for Your Honor not to
issue the order. I asked for her to sign the order; there was no
objection raised.
Id. at 8.
The trial court indicated that as of July 2, 2012, trial was set for
September 10, 2012. N.T., 12/14/12, at 9. The prosecution further
explained that while Appellee Liu complied in a timely fashion, Appellee
Belani did not.
3
The complaints were filed against Appellees in November 2009. It is
noteworthy that the trial court determined, when denying A
due diligence in bringing the case for trial[,] and the postponements were
11.
-10-
J-A12002-14
[THE COMMONWEALTH]: [Appellee Liu] submitted himself
to Central Detectives to get this testing done in a timely fashion.
[Appellee Belani] did not. It took three to four attempts of me
calling my agent to go to Central and for them to be present.
Central Detectives, he can actually dial that number, be met,
and transported to the room so it could be done. He failed to do
it.
He finally did that in August, late August. When I called
They would wait for these two defendants, the submission of
both swabs from both Liu and Belani before they can even do an
analysis.
THE COURT: Why?
[THE COMMONWEALTH]: Well, that [is] the[ir] policy.
They cannot do testing
cannot do [it] unless all genetic material, all material they need
for analysis is submitted. One was not. I was not only duly
diligent, I was beyond duly diligent, short of going personally.
himself to go to Centra
Finally, at some point late in August[,] Belani did submit
would not be available on 9/10. The very next day after
receiving the results, I fax[ed] results to both attorneys, very
next day.
N.T., 12/14/12, at 10 12. The trial court opined the results should have
been available at the end of October; the prosecutor explained that since the
trial court granted an extension and assigned a trial date of December 14,
2012, that was the date the laboratory utilized.
-11-
J-A12002-14
[THE COMMONWEALTH] I told [the lab] that the results I
need the results before my trial date. They asked me, When is
your trial date? December 15th. And they asked me, Is that
realistic, can they expect the results done? They say 6 to 8
THE COURT: Sure. And that would be two months from
August. September, October. So even November.
they analyze. And I spoke to the supervisor. I demanded to
expedited, and I did. But I was told they cannot even assign it
And I can call I would need about an hour and a half, two
done in a DNA lab in a more detail[ed] way.
homicide case, because they have a backlog of cases submitted
way before me, it takes time.
N.T., 12/14/12, at 13 14.
When the trial court asked the prosecutor why he waited until July 2,
2012, to request the DNA testing, in that Appellees had been arrested in late
2012. I reviewed it, and I made the determination that that additional piece
-12-
J-A12002-14
continuance to obtain their own expert analysis, it was error to completely
Further, the Commonwealth argues that Commonwealth v. Smith,
599 A.2d 1350 (Pa. Super. 1991), abrogated in part on other grounds by
Commonwealth v. Malinowski, 671 A.2d 674 (Pa. 1996), is directly on
point. The Commonwealth asserts that in Smith, the Commonwealth
obtained its DNA e
excluded the DNA evidence because the Commonwealth had not diligently
sought to have the testing performed earlier. On appeal, this Court
reversed, holding that the mere failure to have the testing performed earlier
did not violate Pa.R.Crim.P. 305, and that even if there had been a violation,
a continuance, not exclusion of the evidence, would have been the proper
defense herein did not have sufficient time to secure additional expert
analysis before the start of trial on December 14, 2012, directly contradicts
Smith.
Appellees respond that the trial court properly excluded the DNA
evidence. They maintain that the exclusion was not based solely on the
its failure to act with due diligence in expediting the results of the analysis.
-9-