Com. v. McLaurin, D.

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Date filed: 2018-08-03
Citations:
Copy Citations
Click to Find Citing Cases
Combined Opinion
J-S28045-18


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :         PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant,              :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    DOMINIC JARRELL MCLAURIN,                  :
                                               :      No. 1538 MDA 2017
                       Appellee

              Appeal from the Order Entered September 26, 2017
               in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County,
              Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0000640-2016

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:                            FILED AUGUST 03, 2018

        The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the Order granting

Dominic Jarrell McLaurin’s (“McLaurin”) pre-trial Motion to Preclude the

admission, at trial, of statements set forth in his prison intake document.1 We

affirm.

        In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant history underlying

the instant appeal as follows:

              By Information filed on April 28, 2016, [McLaurin] was
        charged with two counts of possession with intent to deliver
        controlled substances[2] and related counts. The charges ar[o]se
____________________________________________


1 The Commonwealth has certified that the suppression court’s Order will
terminate or substantially handicap its prosecution, in accordance with
Pa.R.A.P. 311(d).

2   See 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
J-S28045-18


       out of an incident that allegedly occurred on [February 3, 2016,3]
       when Trooper Tyson Havens and Trooper Edward Dammer of the
       Pennsylvania State Police were on patrol in the Newberry section
       of Williamsport, confronted [McLaurin,] who was seated in the
       driver’s seat of a motor vehicle and, after further investigation,
       discovered eight packs of heroin in the vehicle.

            A jury was selected on August 22, 2017[,] and the case was
       scheduled for a jury trial to begin on September 26, 2017.

            Prior to the jury being brought into the courtroom and
       sworn, the parties met with the court for the purpose of
       [McLaurin] raising oral motions.

             [McLaurin’s] first motion consisted of a [M]otion in limine to
       preclude the use of [] McLaurin’s intake document from the
       Lycoming County Prison.         On September 22, 2017, the
       Commonwealth filed a Notice of Intent to Introduce Certified
       Records pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 902(11).
       Among the records were a [m]edical [a]dmission form[,] dated
       March 1, 2016, apparently completed by a prison nurse[,] which,
       among other things, reads as follows:

           “Street drug use: denies”, “current prescribed medication:
           Percocet, ten milligrams—twenty milligrams/daily—since
           2015”, and a medication administration record noting
           under “medication” “Tramadol 50 mg’s … 3 days prn” and
           [“]Tramadol 50 mg … 3 days prn.”

             The medication administration record also indicated[,]
       under “hour”[,] the numbers 8 and 12 for the first Tramadol
       entry[,] and the number 6 for the second Tramadol entry. The
       medical administration record also included the initials of a person
       under the numbers 16, 17 and 18[,] corresponding to the 8 and
       12 entries[,] and initials of a person under the numbers 15, 16
       and 17[,] corresponding with the 6 entry.

            The Commonwealth intended to introduce the [m]edical
       [a]dmission form for the purpose of proving that [McLaurin]
       denied street drug use[,] thus proving that the drugs allegedly
____________________________________________


3In its Opinion, the trial court mistakenly states that the incident took place
on January 3, 2016. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/19/17, at 1.

                                           -2-
J-S28045-18


     possessed by him[, approximately one month prior to his arrest,]
     were for the purpose of distribution and not personal use.

          [McLaurin] objected to the use of the form[,] arguing that it
     was hearsay and prejudicial.

           The Commonwealth argued that it was admissible as a
     business record certified under Rule 902(11).

           Further, the Commonwealth wanted to introduce portions of
     the [medical intake documents,] where[in] [McLaurin] allegedly
     admitted to taking Percocets [sic], as well as [McLaurin’s] detox
     observation record from March 1, 2016[,] to March 4, 2016. The
     Commonwealth argued that “it indicates that [McLaurin] exhibited
     zero symptoms of detox and received no treatment for detox.”
     The Commonwealth argued that the detox observations prove that
     [McLaurin] was “not withdrawing from anything.”

           In addition to [McLaurin’s] hearsay and prejudice argument,
     [McLaurin] contended that it was not relevant. Specifically, the
     incident occurred on February 3, 2016[,] and [McLaurin] was
     admitted to the Lycoming County [P]rison on March 1, 2016[,]
     after he was taken into custody.

Trial Court Opinion, 12/19/17, at 1-3 (footnotes added).

     After a hearing, the trial court granted McLaurin’s Motion to Preclude, at

trial, the admission of the medical intake forms, concluding that the forms’

statement regarding McLaurin’s narcotics use was prejudicial, not relevant,

and constituted impermissible hearsay. N.T., 9/26/17, at 10. The trial court

additionally concluded that evidence regarding McLaurin’s admission that he

was taking Percocet on March 1, 2016, without expert testimony, would

confuse the jury and cause the jury to speculate as to whether McLaurin

possessed narcotics for personal use in early February 2016. See Trial Court

Opinion, 12/19/17, at 3.


                                    -3-
J-S28045-18


      The Commonwealth filed a Notice of Appeal, followed by a court-ordered

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal.

      The Commonwealth presents the following claims for our review:

         I.     Whether the trial court erred by misapplying the law in
                granting [McLaurin’s] Motion to Preclude Evidence?

         II.    Whether the trial court erred by precluding the evidence
                based on the timeliness of discovery[,] when less severe
                remedies were available?

         III.   Whether the trial court erred by granting [McLaurin]
                relief, in part, on grounds not asserted in his Motion to
                Preclude Evidence?

Brief for the Commonwealth at 7.

      Our standard of review of an order granting or denying a motion in

limine is well settled:

      When ruling on a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion
      in limine, we apply an evidentiary abuse of discretion standard of
      review. The admission of evidence is committed to the sound
      discretion of the trial court, and a trial court’s ruling regarding the
      admission of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless that
      ruling reflects manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice,
      bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support to be clearly erroneous.

Commonwealth v. Mangel, 181 A.3d 1154, 1158 (Pa. Super. 2018)

(quoting Commonwealth v. Moser, 999 A.2d 602, 605 (Pa. Super. 2010)).

      In reviewing the trial court’s Order, we are cognizant that “[e]vidence is

relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it

would be without the evidence[,] and the fact is of consequence in determining

the action.”    Pa.R.E. 401.    However, “[t]he court may exclude relevant

evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of ... unfair

                                       -4-
J-S28045-18


prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting

time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Pa.R.E. 403.

     The Commonwealth claims that the trial court misapplied the law in

granting McLaurin’s Motion to Preclude. Brief for the Commonwealth at 12.

In support, the Commonwealth asserts that the statements in McLaurin’s

medical intake forms are admissible pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of

Evidence 803(4) (Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment) and

803(6) (Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity).           Brief for the

Commonwealth at 12-13.       In support, the Commonwealth states that it

provided to the trial court a notarized certification that McLaurin’s prison

medical records “were made at or near the time of the occurrence of the

matters set forth [therein], or from information transmitted by [] a person

with knowledge for those matters;” were kept in the course of a regularly

conducted activity; and were made as a regular practice.     Id. at 14. The

Commonwealth proffers that McLaurin, if addicted to street drugs, would have

been unable to obtain them during his incarceration. Id. As such, McLaurin

“would be in danger of withdrawing[,] which would require medical

treatment.” Id.

     Further, the Commonwealth contends that McLaurin’s statement in the

medical intake forms, regarding a hernia in his back and his prescription for

Percocet, were made for the purpose of continuing medical treatment. Id.

Therefore, the Commonwealth posits, the statements in McLaurin’s medical


                                    -5-
J-S28045-18


intake forms “fell under the hearsay exceptions found in Pa.R.E. 803(4) and

(6).” Brief for the Commonwealth at 15.

      The Commonwealth also argues that the observations set forth in one

of the medical forms, McLaurin’s Detox Observation Record, should be

admissible under Pa.R.E. 803(4) and (6) “as a business record exception to

hearsay[,] as it was part of the certified records provided to [McLaurin].” Brief

for the Commonwealth at 15. The Commonwealth proffers that a symbol used

in the record (a “0” with a line through it) indicated that McLaurin showed no

symptoms of “detoxing,” and that “no treatment was provided to [McLaurin]

for detoxing.” Id. The Commonwealth contends that the meaning of the zero

with a line through it is a universal symbol that any lay person would

understand.    Id. at 16.    According to the Commonwealth, under these

circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion when it precluded

information provided on the Detox Observation Record as hearsay. Id.

      Initially, we observe that in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement,

the Commonwealth preserved the following issue regarding the admissibility

of McLaurin’s medical documents: “The trial court erred when it granted

[McLaurin’s] [M]otion to Preclude Evidence.”         Commonwealth’s Concise

Statement, 10/18/17, at ¶ 1. The Commonwealth did not identify the trial

court’s alleged misapplication of Rules of Evidence 803(4) or 803(6) as issues

to be raised on appeal. Consequently, the Commonwealth’s claim as to the

records’ admissibility, pursuant to Rules of Evidence 803(4) and 803(6), is not


                                      -6-
J-S28045-18


preserved for appellate review. See Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484,

491 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating that “[a]ny issues not raised in a [Rule]

1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”) (emphasis omitted)).

      In its first claim, the Commonwealth additionally argues that “[t]he trial

court erred when it ruled that the medical record evidence was not relevant

and extremely prejudicial.”     Brief for the Commonwealth at 16.           The

Commonwealth asserts that the information in McLaurin’s medical forms “is

extremely material as it would show that [McLaurin] denied street drug use[,]

and that he was not detoxing from drug use.” Id. at 17. The Commonwealth

further argues that there is probative value to this information “because the

fact that [McLaurin] denied street drug use tends to establish the proposition

that the drugs found were held with the intention to deliver them, not

personally use them.” Id. The Commonwealth points out that it would be

presenting expert testimony to establish that “if a street drug user were to

suddenly stop using the street drug, the user almost always detoxes.” Id.

Thus, the Commonwealth asserts, the evidence would “make the fact that

[McLaurin] was a drug dealer more probable than it would be without the

evidence ….” Id.

      In its Opinion, the trial court addressed this claim and concluded that it

lacks merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/19/17, at 4-9. We agree with the




                                     -7-
J-S28045-18


sound reasoning of the trial court, as set forth in its Opinion, and affirm on

this basis as to McLaurin’s first claim.4 See id.

       We will address the Commonwealth’s second and third claims together.

In its second claim, the Commonwealth argues that the trial court improperly

precluded the admission of the prison medical forms based on the timeliness

of discovery, when less severe remedies were available.                 Brief for the

Commonwealth at 20.          The Commonwealth acknowledges the trial court’s

statement that it did not fault the Commonwealth for the timeliness of its

production of the medical records.               Id. at 21.         Nevertheless, the

Commonwealth disputes the trial court’s statement that “three working days

was not as sufficient amount of time to obtain appropriate rebuttal testimony

or to determine if [McLaurin] would like to testify.”         Id.    According to the

Commonwealth, suppression of the records was not warranted, and the more

appropriate remedy would be a continuance. Id.

       In its third claim, the Commonwealth argues that the trial court erred

by granting McLaurin relief, in part, on grounds not asserted in McLaurin’s

Motion in Limine. Id. According to the Commonwealth, McLaurin’s Motion

sought to preclude evidence regarding his prison medical forms “based upon

the evidence being prejudicial, hearsay, and the lapse in time between the



____________________________________________


4 In its Opinion, the trial court incorporated its on-the-record statement of its
reasoning, as set forth in the Notes of Testimony of the hearing on McLaurin’s
Motion in Limine. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/19/17, at 4-6.

                                           -8-
J-S28045-18


alleged incident and the prison intake date.” Id. at 22. The Commonwealth

argues that the trial court raised the timeliness issue sua sponte, and relied

on the timing of discovery, in part, in granting McLaurin’s Motion. Id. The

Commonwealth points out that during argument on McLaurin’s Motion in

Limine, the trial court improperly inquired as to whether Commonwealth’s

evidence would infringe on McLaurin’s right to remain silent.        Id.   The

Commonwealth argues that the trial court’s reliance on issues not raised by

McLaurin constitutes an abuse of discretion. Id.

      In its Opinion, the trial court addressed these claims and concluded that

they lack merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/19/17, at 10. We agree with the

sound reasoning of the trial court, as set forth in its Opinion, and affirm on

this basis with regard to the Commonwealth’s second and third claims. See

id.

      Order affirmed.



Judgment Entered.




Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 08/03/2018




                                     -9-
                                                                                           Circulated 06/26/2018          11e1




                             IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

                     COMMONWEALTH                              :




                             vs.                               :   No.   CR-640-2016         j.) -13 CO    c
                                                                                                       X7 N'l
                                                                                                                 r-4
                                                                                                                 c)
                                                                                                                 --:--a
                                                                                                                          -0-
                                                                                                                          f



                     DOMINIC J. McLAURIN,                      .                             -
                                                                                             --v:
                                                                                                 ::1
                                                                                                 -a
                                                                                                       -,- z
                                                                                                       (:)>
                                                                                                           -,.
                                                                                                                 =
                                                                                                                 In       0
                                                                                                                 .-)
                                Defendant                      :   Rule 1925 (a) Opinion     r) 0 ilri
RECEI EI:f                                                                                                                OF-
                                              OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER IN                  -)Sr
                                                                                                 ,, -ft.
                                                                                                   .=
                                                                                                           Om
                                             COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 1925 (a) OF ',..' rii                   C
                                                                                                           oc)
       217                                 THE RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDUlti