J-S55020-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
JOHN QUACH, :
:
Appellee : No. 370 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered December 18, 2013,
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Criminal Division, at No. MC-51-CR-0041409-2012.
BEFORE: BOWES, SHOGAN and OTT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED JANUARY 26, 2015
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (“the Commonwealth”) appeals
from the order entered on December 18, 2013, in the Philadelphia County
Court of Common Pleas, that dismissed the criminal charges filed against
John Quach (“Appellee”). We affirm.
The trial court set forth the underlying facts of this case as follows:
Appellee, John Quach, was arrested and charged with
Possession of a Controlled Substance, Possession of a Controlled
Substance with Intent to Deliver (PWID), and Conspiracy to
Manufacture, Delivery, or Possession with Intent to Manufacture
or Deliver. The lower court dismissed the charges for lack of
evidence on October 3, 2013. On November 7, 2013, the
Commonwealth re-filed its criminal complaint listing identical
charges. See Criminal Docket Sheet.
On December 18, 2013, this Court held a preliminary re-
file hearing. This Court, after hearing oral argument, agreed with
J-S55020-14
the lower court that the Commonwealth failed to make out a
prima facie case on all charges.
***
The facts underlying the lower court’s decision are as
follows:
1. [Appellee’s] brother was seen making a transaction and
eventually a search warrant was executed at 4651 Rosehill
Street. Notes of Testimony, Preliminary Hearing Volume I,
December 18, 2013, p. 5.
2. In the middle bedroom of the house the officers found 100
packs of heroin in the closet, as well as a grinder, scale, stamper
pad, and new and unused packaging. Id. The packaging and
heroin found in the bedroom matched those from the earlier
observed sales. Id. In the middle bedroom there was mail in
[Appellee’s] name. Id[.] at 5-6.
3. 4651 Rosehill Street is a family home. Id[.] at 6. There are
five adults living in this house, including three adult children and
the mother and father. Id.
4. There was no testimony that [Appellee] resided in the middle
bedroom. Id[.] at 7. There were no clothes, sneakers, or other
personal items tying [Appellee] to this room. Id.
5. At the preliminary re-file hearing, the Commonwealth failed to
offer sufficient evidence indicating that [Appellee] occupied the
middle bedroom. Id. [a]t 7-8.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/26/14, at 1-2 (footnotes omitted).
Following the trial court’s December 18, 2013 order dismissing the
charges against Appellee, the Commonwealth filed a timely appeal. On
appeal, the Commonwealth raises one issue for this Court’s consideration:
Should the charges of conspiracy, possession with the intent to
distribute a controlled substance, and knowing and intentional
-2-
J-S55020-14
possession of a controlled substance charges be reinstated
where the evidence, when properly viewed in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, established a prima facie case
that [Appellee] conspired to sell heroin out of his family home?
The Commonwealth’s Brief at 1.
In reviewing the Commonwealth’s issue, we are mindful that:
The preliminary hearing is not a trial. The principal function of a
preliminary hearing is to protect an individual’s right against an
unlawful arrest and detention. At this hearing the
Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing at least a prima
facie case that a crime has been committed and that the accused
is probably the one who committed it. It is not necessary for the
Commonwealth to establish at this stage the accused’s guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to meet its burden at the
preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth is required to present
evidence with regard to each of the material elements of the
charge and to establish sufficient probable cause to warrant the
belief that the accused committed the offense.
Commonwealth v. McBride, 595 A.2d 589, 591 (Pa. 1991) (citations
omitted). The Commonwealth’s evidence need only be such that, if
presented at trial and accepted as true, the trial judge would be warranted
in permitting the case to go to the jury. Commonwealth v. Huggins, 836
A.2d 862, 866 (Pa. 2003). “[I]nferences reasonably drawn from the
evidence of record which would support a verdict of guilty are to be given
effect, and the evidence must be read in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth’s case.” Id. “The question of the evidentiary sufficiency of
the Commonwealth’s prima facie case is one of law as to which this Court’s
review is plenary.” Id. at 865.
-3-
J-S55020-14
Upon review of the record, we agree with the trial court and conclude
that the Commonwealth did not establish Appellee’s connection to the
middle bedroom of the house where contraband was discovered, and
therefore, failed to establish a connection among Appellee, the contraband,
and the illicit sale of narcotics. While the police did find a letter addressed to
Appellee in the middle bedroom, the evidence established that the residence
was a family home where Appellee lived with his brothers and parents. We
agree with the trial court that the Commonwealth failed to prove that
Appellee probably committed the crimes of possession of a controlled
substance, PWID, or conspiracy to commit PWID. The notes of testimony
from the initial preliminary hearing held in Municipal Court on October 3,
2013, reveal at most, one piece of mail found in the middle bedroom bearing
Appellee’s name. The only other attempt the Commonwealth made to
connect Appellee to the middle bedroom was Police Officer Richard
Fitzgerald’s testimony regarding comments from Appellee’s mother. N.T.,
10/3/13, at 8-10. Appellee’s counsel immediately objected on the basis of
hearsay, and the trial court sustained the objection. Id. The questioning
ceased and no other evidence was provided.
At the preliminary hearing on the refiling of the charges held before
the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, the Commonwealth’s
evidence remained scant:
-4-
J-S55020-14
MR. SCIOLLA [Appellee’s Counsel]: And my argument, Judge, is
the same argument I made [at the initial preliminary hearing
held on October 3, 2013]. There were three adult children living
in the house with the mother and father. Nobody has any idea
how long the drugs were in that bedroom or the mail or if in fact
that’s my client’s bedroom or the other brother’s bedroom. All
they have is a family house where, obviously, you’re going to
find mail in everybody’s name. And they’re suggesting that the
drugs, the observed sale sold by his brother must be this man’s
drugs, not the other brother’s, not the father’s, not the mother’s
and not the brother that was seen selling the drugs.
MR. OSBORNE [Attorney for the Commonwealth]: And, Your
Honor, we are at the preliminary hearing stage, so I think the
inference here and all inferences in our favor is that if the mail is
in that middle bedroom, that means that it’s his middle
bedroom. When I go home at night I don’t leave my mail in my
roommate’s room so –
THE COURT: But I don’t see any testimony showing that that
was actually his room.
MR. OSBORNE: That’s the argument, the mail that was found in
that room makes that his room, that’s the inference here.
THE COURT: But there were no clothes, nothing that you could
show like sneakers or anything that it was this defendant’s?
MR. OSBORNE: No, the only thing that we have is the mail to tie
him to that room, mail in his name in that middle bedroom
where all of this is found. And, also, to say that we have the mail
in this room, that means he’s in the room, he sees the grinders
all over the dresser, he sees the scale --
MR. SCIOLLA: Judge, I got to object.
THE COURT: Go ahead, go ahead.
MR. OSBORNE: And he sees everything that’s in the room. If
he’s in the room, at least with the mail, that means he knows
what’s going on in this room. And I would suggest at this level
the inference is that if the mail was found in this middle
-5-
J-S55020-14
bedroom, then it’s the middle bedroom. This is just at a
preliminary hearing stage and with all reasonable inferences –
THE COURT: But even at that stage, you have to prove that this
person more likely than not was the person that should be held
for these offenses. If you have several people living in the house
and then there’s no other indication, with the search warrant
when they searched the room, that there was ID, there was
something, clothes of this particular defendant that was in the
room, you know, you got several people living in that house.
Refile is denied.
(Proceeding concluded.)
N.T. Refile Hearing, 12/18/13, at 6-9.
The Commonwealth cites to Commonwealth v. Bricker, 882 A.2d
1008 (Pa. Super. 2005), and Commonwealth v. Walker, 874 A.2d 667
(Pa. Super. 2005), as support for its position that the letter, by itself, which
was found in the middle bedroom, was sufficient to establish constructive
possession1 of the contraband and guilty knowledge of Appellee’s brother’s
1
Because Appellee was not found with contraband on his person, the
Commonwealth was required to establish constructive possession.
Constructive possession is an inference arising from a set of
facts that possession of the contraband was more likely than not.
We have defined constructive possession as conscious dominion.
We subsequently defined conscious dominion as the power to
control the contraband and the intent to exercise that control. To
aid application, we have held that constructive possession may
be established by the totality of the circumstances.
Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426, 430 (Pa. Super. 2012) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
-6-
J-S55020-14
sales of narcotics. We conclude that Bricker and Walker are
distinguishable.
In Bricker, the evidence established that the police executed a search
warrant at the defendant’s house. It was established that the defendant
lived in that house, and when the police searched it, they discovered a bank
statement addressed to the defendant. Clearly, these facts are analogous to
the case at bar. However, additional evidence produced in Bricker revealed
that the defendant was present in the kitchen when the police entered the
house and that crack cocaine was found on the kitchen floor, on a couch in
the adjacent living room, and in an upstairs bedroom. Significantly, the
defendant had on his person a crack pipe, a rod used for cleaning a crack
pipe, a filter for a crack pipe, and an electronic scale. Additionally, the
defendant in Bricker admitted that he was a user of crack cocaine. All of
these additional facts connected the defendant in Bricker to the contraband.
Similarly, in Walker, the defendant was present in the house when
the police executed a search warrant. When the police entered, the officers
observed three rooms in the basement: an office, a bedroom, and a
bathroom. The defendant had dominion and control over the basement area
where he kept his clothes and mail addressed to him. Inside the basement,
the officers found cameras that monitored the walkway and driveway. In
the middle of the room was a desk with two piles of cocaine. The officers
-7-
J-S55020-14
also discovered twenty-nine packets of additional cocaine, clear plastic
baggies, $10,203.00 in U.S. currency, and seven guns. It was discovered
that two other people lived with the defendant: a sixty-year-old female and
an eighty-year-old male, but these individuals were not arrested. Upon
defendant’s arrest, he asked to get a shirt and shoes from the basement and
admitted that he resided at the residence with his stepfather. Clearly, the
evidence in Walker linking the defendant to the multiple items of
contraband was more than a piece of mail.
While the evidence discussed in the aforementioned cases was
reviewed under the more stringent reasonable doubt standard necessary to
sustain a conviction and not, as here, the prima facie standard, the
distinction between the instant case and Walker and Bricker is substantial
regardless of the standard applied. In both Walker and Bricker,
contraband, clothing, mail, and personal property were discovered in areas
of a house over which it was established the defendants had dominion.
Ultimately, the issue was whether the evidence linked the defendants to
their respective residences. While the mail, in and of itself, that was
discovered in Walker and Bricker tied the defendants to the house where
contraband was uncovered, those cases do not stand for the proposition that
mail addressed to the dwelling tie a person to an individual bedroom
within the dwelling, especially where the contraband at issue was not
-8-
J-S55020-14
discovered in a common area or an area where the Commonwealth failed to
show the defendant had access.
Upon review, we are constrained to agree with the trial court that,
even when inferences are made in favor of the prosecution, the
Commonwealth established only that Appellee likely resided at 4651 Rosehill
Street. The Commonwealth, however, did not establish that Appellee
resided in the middle bedroom where the contraband was discovered. As
such, pursuant to our standard and scope of review, we agree with the trial
court’s conclusion that the Commonwealth failed to present a prima facie
case. Accordingly, we affirm the order dismissing the charges against
Appellee.
Order affirmed.
Judge Ott joins the Memorandum.
Judge Bowes files a Dissenting Memorandum.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/26/2015
-9-