Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 5/12/23 Zak Goldstein 5/12/23

PA Superior Court: COVID Speedy Trial Rule Suspensions Are Absolute Even if the Prosecutors Took Two Years Off

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Malone, holding that the COVID-related suspensions of Pennsylvania’s speedy trial rules are absolute no matter how little the Commonwealth did to try to move a case forward during the suspension.

In Malone, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas dismissed the defendant’s aggravated assault and possession with the intent to deliver case due to a violation of Rule 600. The court found that the Commonwealth failed to bring the defendant to trial for nearly two years and that the Commonwealth had failed to act with due diligence during that period. The Philadelphia courts suspended Rule 600 from March 2020 to October 1, 2021 due to COVID, but the trial court ruled that the Commonwealth would be entitled to the benefit of the suspension only if the Commonwealth had acted with due diligence during the relevant time periods. Because it had not, the time still counted, and the court dismissed the charges.

What is Rule 600?

Rule 600 is a state court speedy trial rule which requires the Commonwealth tho bring a defendant to trial within 365 days from the filing of the criminal complaint. Unfortunately, Rule 600 in general has a lot of exceptions. Time not attributable to the negligence of the prosecution generally often does not count. For example, continuance requests from the defense, the unavailability of a judge to hear the case, or even a police officer’s failure to appear for a good reason may result in the time between two court dates being excluded from the 365 day limit. In other words, time between hearings that is not really the prosecution’s fault does not count so long as the prosecution acted with reasonable due diligence in attempting to move the case forward to trial.

In March 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court suspended Rule 600 as courts throughout the state shut down due to COVID. The Supreme Court lifted its suspension shortly thereafter, but it gave president judges for each county the authority to extend the suspension locally. Some counties, like York, began operating normally almost immediately. Others, like Philadelphia and Montgomery County, did not resume normal operations for nearly two years and are still struggling with COVID-related backlogs. Accordingly, Philadelphia’s president judge left the suspension in effect until October 1, 2021.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The issue in this case, therefore, was whether the general rule that the Commonwealth must act with due diligence in order for the time between court dates to not count trumps the speedy trial rule suspension or whether the suspension of the rule was absolute. In this case, the Superior Court ruled that the suspension was absolute and the Commonwealth had absolutely no obligation to do any work on its cases during the nearly two year period that Philadelphia suspended the operation of Rule 600. Therefore, the Superior Court reversed the decision of the trial judge and reinstated the charges. It seems reasonable to expect the prosecution to have monitored its cases and worked to get them ready during the shut downs, but the Superior Court has ruled that they had no obligation to do so.

The defendant will now again face trial in the Court of Common Pleas. Given that the case is now more than three years old, the Commonwealth will likely struggle to prosecute the defendant, but further litigation will follow.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire arguing before the PA Supreme Court

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 5/3/23 Zak Goldstein 5/3/23

PA Superior Court Approves of Consolidation of Unrelated Drug Case With Drug Delivery Resulting in Death Case

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Shackelford, holding that the trial court properly allowed the Commonwealth to consolidate the defendant’s possession with the intent to deliver case with his drug delivery resulting in death case. Police executed a search warrant at the defendant’s house in order to investigate a drug delivery homicide, and when they did so, they found a significant quantity of drugs. The drugs obviously could not have caused the decedent’s death as the death occurred prior to the execution of the warrant, but the trial court allowed the Commonwealth to try the cases together. The Superior Court affirmed, holding that the discovery of drugs during the execution of the search warrant would have been admissible in the homicide prosecution. The Court also rejected the defendant’s suppression challenge, finding that a reliable confidential informant provided sufficient probable cause for police to obtain a search warrant.

Commonwealth v. ShackelFord

In April 2021, the decedent was found unresponsive on her bathroom floor. She died in the hospital a few hours later, and police quickly began investigating her death as a potential drug delivery resulting in death homicide. The coroner subsequently determined that the cause of the woman’s death was combined drug toxicity. In her house, detectives located, among other things, cocaine, heroin laced with fentanyl and tramadol, associated drug paraphernalia, and the woman's cellphone. A search of her cellphone revealed that on the night before her death, she had been communicating with a number ending in "7678.” The number was labeled in her phone contacts as "Jazz." Detectives identified the phone number as belonging to the defendant. Fortuitously for the police, investigators were already investigating the defendant for dealing drugs. Investigators found a text message thread between the woman and the defendant which included a request from her to buy drugs. The texts also included messages between the two outlining when and where they would meet.

Detectives spoke with a confidential informant, and the CI told them that the defendant was known to sell drugs. Police thereafter executed a search warrant at the defendant's home based on information from the confidential informant. The police found approximately $7,900 in U.S. currency, over 250 wax paper bags of packaged fentanyl mixed with heroin, over 80 grams of methamphetamine, and quantities of cocaine and marijuana. The defendant later admitted to selling drugs and selling specifically to the woman who died. The Commonwealth filed two sets of charges against the defendant. The first case charged drug delivery resulting in death and criminal use of a communication facility in April 2021. The second case charged possession with intent to deliver fentanyl, possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia for the contraband found in his home in August 2021.

The Commonwealth filed a motion to consolidate the cases and try them together. The defendant filed a motion to sever the cases and suppress the evidence found in his home, arguing that the police did not have probable cause for the search. The trial court heard the motions and denied both of them. In June 2022, the court held a consolidated jury trial on both cases. The defendant was found guilty of drug delivery resulting in death, criminal use of a communication facility, and two possession with intent to deliver charges. The trial court sentenced the defendant to an aggregate incarceration term of 11 – 25 years’ incarceration.

The Criminal Appeal

On appeal, the defendant raised two issues: (1) did the trial court err by failing to find that the search warrant lacked probable cause, and (2) did the trial court err by failing to order separate trials? In the first issue, the defendant argued that the search warrant was issued without probable cause, claiming that the CI’s claims were not credible. He argued that the trial court incorrectly decided the motion, and so all of the evidence obtained in the search should have been deemed inadmissible for trial.

The Superior Court’s standard of review on this issue is limited to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing. At a suppression hearing, the Commonwealth must prove that it did not obtain the challenged evidence in violation of the defendant's rights. The prosecution must prove this by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence is the lowest burden of proof and requires the Commonwealth essentially to show that it is more likely than not that they did not violate the defendant’s rights. Further, in the absence of an allegation that the police lied in the search warrant, challenges to a search warrant are based solely on the information in the document's four corners. In determining probable cause, the courts utilize a totality of circumstances approach. Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances are reasonably known and from a trustworthy source and a prudent person of reasonable caution would believe there is a possibility that evidence of a crime could be found in the location to be searched.

The Superior Court agreed with the trial court that the warrant established probable cause. The court reasoned that past information from the CI in question led to two felony convictions. The court further noted that the CI had engaged in an undercover drug purchase from the defendant and that the police had conducted independent surveillance to corroborate the CI’s information. Therefore, the Superior Court agreed with the trial court's assessment that the CI was credible and the warrant contained probable cause. The court rejected the suppression challenge.

In addressing the second issue, the defendant argued that evidence that he had drugs in August 2021 had no relevance in a homicide prosecution for events that took place in April 2021. The defendant argued that evidence from one case would not otherwise be admissible in the other and was merely used to smear him as a drug dealer. The Commonwealth argued that the evidence that he was involved in drug sales just a few months later was relevant to show that he could have been engaged in drug sales in April.

In deciding whether to consolidate or sever two separate cases, a court must determine: (1) whether the evidence of each of the offenses would be admissible in a separate trial for the other; (2) whether such evidence is capable of separation by the jury so as to avoid the danger of confusion; and, if so, (3) whether the consolidation of offenses will unduly prejudice the defendant.

The Superior Court noted that the defendant’s argument only focused on the first aspect. The court determined that the evidence of crimes other than those in question may not be admitted solely to show a defendant's bad character or propensity to commit the crime. However, evidence of other crimes is admissible to demonstrate motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme, plan, or design embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to prove the others or the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial. Additionally, evidence of other crimes is admissible when such evidence is part of the history of the case and forms part of the natural development of the facts.

Here, the trial court had reasoned that the cases should not be severed because the cases proved identity, and the discovery of the drugs was linked to the investigation into the homicide, so the events were connected. The Superior Court agreed with the trial court’s opinion, finding that evidence of each offense would have been admissible in a separate trial for the other. Therefore, the Superior Court affirmed.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

Zak Goldstein 3/10/23 Zak Goldstein 3/10/23

PA Superior Court: Bad Info From Third Party in Search Warrant Does Not Invalidate Warrant

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Adorno, holding that a search warrant is still valid even where the warrant contains incorrect information that has been provided by a third party. In this case, the Court found that the police relied on the information provided by a third party in good faith, so they had probable cause for the warrant. The fact that the information turned out to be wrong did not require suppression of the evidence that they later found.

Commonwealth v. Adorno

In this case, police officers discovered a Facebook Live video that showed a user named “Zay-Yaho” dancing while holding a gun and drugs. They identified the user as the defendant and determined that he had a criminal record which prohibited him from possessing a firearm. The officers learned that he lived at a certain address in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. They interviewed the landlord of the apartment building, and the landlord confirmed that the defendant lived there. The landlord also told them that the location in the video looked like the suspected address. The police then obtained a search warrant for that address. They executed the warrant, and they found three guns and prescription medication.

The Motion to Suppress

After finding the contraband, the police arrested the defendant. The defense filed a motion to suppress the evidence, and the trial court held a hearing on the motion to suppress. In the motion, the defense alleged that the police conducted a search without probable cause, that the search was based on incorrect information, and that the search exceeded the scope of the search warrant. Essentially, the defendant argued that the evidence should be suppressed because the video did not actually show the location that the police searched. At the hearing on the motion, the officers agreed that there were noticeable differences between the walls and layout of the home that they searched and the home in the Facebook video. Similarly, a friend of the defendant’s testified that the location in the video was her house, not the defendant’s apartment. She had not been aware of the video.

The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding that police had searched the wrong location because the defendant’s apartment, which was the subject of the warrant, was not the location in the video. The Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that the police properly relied on a validly issued search warrant and that the fact that the warrant turned out to contain incorrect information did not render it invalid. The Superior Court agreed. First, the Court found that there was a nexus between the crime and a home that would justify the search of a home because the video showed the gun in a home. Where a defendant commits a crime on the street, police may not have probable cause to search a come because the police cannot just assume a defendant will store evidence of the crime there. But where the crime is committed in a home, the case for searching a home is stronger.

Second, the Court found the warrant to be valid despite the factual error regarding the location depicted in the video. In order for a court to find a search warrant invalid due to a factual error, the defense must show that the police intentionally included false information or included false information with a reckless disregard for the truth. Here, the defense did not even allege that the police had acted in bad faith by either lying or including the information with a reckless disregard for the truth. Accordingly, the defense failed to meet its burden. This type of motion is often called a Franks motion. Here, the defense had argued only that the information was wrong, but showing that a warrant contains incorrect information is not enough to invalidate a warrant.

Therefore, the Superior Court reversed the order granting the motion to suppress. The defendant will have to face trial in the Court of Common Pleas.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Zak Goldstein 10/25/22 Zak Goldstein 10/25/22

PA Superior Court: Contraband is Not a Strict Liability Offense

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Arnold, holding that the crime of contraband is not a strict liability offense. Strict liability offenses are those which do not require a defendant to act with any mens rea or guilty conscience. They are disfavored in criminal law, and although the contraband statute does not actually identify a specific mens rea, the Superior Court found that the default mens rea of recklessness applies to this charge.

The Facts of Arnold

The defendant was arrested and detained in Butler County for a probation violation. He was transported to the Butler County Prison and placed in a holding cell. A corrections officer searched him during processing and found a pill for which the defendant did not have a prescription. The guard confiscated the pill, and the Commonwealth charged the defendant with contraband. The defendant proceeded to a trial, and he testified that he did not realize the pill was in his sock or shoe because his leg had been amputated, he wore a prosthetic leg between the knee and shoe, and he could not feel anything in the shoe as he did not have an actual foot. In addition to the pill in his sock, he had been found with another controlled substance in his cell. Later, the guards searched his cell and found three pieces of film that contained suboxone in the defendant’s wheelchair. He denied knowing about it.

The jury found him guilty of contraband and possession, and he received a 2-4 year incarceration sentence. Contraband provides for a two year mandatory minimum, so the court was required to impose the mandatory minimum sentence.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court Appeal

The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it must find he acted with a specific mens rea in order to find him guilty of contraband and that making contraband a strict liability offense would violate due process. The Superior Court agreed.

The contraband offense is defined as:

A person commits a felony of the second degree if he sells, gives, transmits or furnishes to any convict in a prison, or inmate in a mental hospital, or gives away in or brings into any prison, mental hospital, or any building appurtenant thereto, or on the land granted to or owned or leased by the Commonwealth or county for the use and benefit of the prisoners or inmates, or puts in any place where it may be secured by a convict of a prison, inmate of a mental hospital, or employee thereof, any controlled substance included in Schedules I through V of the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, (except the ordinary hospital supply of the prison or mental hospital) without a written permit signed by the physician of such institution, specifying the quantity and quality of the substance which may be furnished to any convict, inmate, or employee in the prison or mental hospital, the name of the prisoner, inmate, or employee for whom, and the time when the same may be furnished, which permit shall be delivered to and kept by the warden or superintendent of the prison or mental hospital.

This statute does not include a mens rea – in other words, it does not explicitly state that a defendant must act knowingly, intentionally, recklessly, or negligently. Instead, the statute appears to provide strict liability for bringing drugs into a prison. The Superior Court, however, recognized that where the legislature does not specifically state that a serious offense should be a strict liability offense, the crimes code requires a court to read in a minimum mens rea of recklessness. Here, the trial court had not done so. It did not require the jury to find that the defendant at least acted recklessly with respect to bringing the drugs into the prison. Therefore, the Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals in state and federal court. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.