J-S06021-20
2020 PA Super 146
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JEREMY SEAN BRIGHT :
:
Appellant : No. 2075 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered June 12, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-09-CR-0002705-2018
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
OPINION BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED JUNE 22, 2020
Jeremy Sean Bright appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
following his conviction for Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled
Substance (“PWID”).1 He challenges the trial court’s denial of his request for
the identities of two confidential informants (“CIs”) and argues that the verdict
was against the weight of the evidence. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the facts of this case as follows:
On September 16, 2017, Officers Dennis Leighton and
Edmond O’Brien supervised a buy-walk between [Bright]
and two confidential informants on the 1200 block of Marie
Lowe Drive in Bristol Township, Bucks County. Prior to the
buy, police officers searched the confidential informant and
their vehicle and provided the confidential informants with
$80 of documented buy money. Officer Leighton traveled to
Marie Lowe Drive and parked his vehicle in a position where
he would have a clear view of the scene of the buy. Officer
O’Brien followed the confidential informants to the area of
the buy in a separate vehicle until he reached the
____________________________________________
1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
J-S06021-20
intersection of Schumacher Drive and Beaver Dam Road. At
that point, Officer Leighton confirmed over the radio that he
could see the confidential informants so Officer O’Brien left
the area to avoid detection.
[Bright] was standing in the roadway in front of 1223 Marie
Lowe Drive near his blue Chevy Impala when the
confidential informants arrived. From his vehicle, Officer
Leighton watched the confidential informants park behind
[Bright’s] Impala. Officer Leighton testified that one of the
confidential informants exited the car and interacted briefly
with [Bright] before returning to the car. [Bright] then
walked around to the trunk of the Impala, placed something
on the curb next to the confidential informants’ car, and
motioned to one of the confidential informants, who then
got out of the car and retrieved what [Bright] had left on
the curb. Officer Leighton had an unobstructed view of the
buy and he testified that he did not lose sight of either of
the confidential informants during the entire transaction.
Officer O’Brien resumed his surveillance at the intersection
of Schumacher Drive and Beaver Dam Road after the
confidential informants left the area of the buy. When they
returned to the secure location, the confidential informants
underwent another search and provided Officer O’Brien with
the 1.91 grams of loose crack cocaine that they had
purchased from [Bright].
Trial Ct. Op., filed 08/06/19, at 1-2.
Prior to trial, Bright filed a motion to compel the identity of the CIs. The
trial court held a hearing where Officer Dennis Leighton testified. He said that
at the time of the buy, he had known Bright for more than 10 years, since he
arrested him in 2006 for an unrelated offense, and had had numerous contacts
with him since that time. N.T., 10/12/18, at 8, 9. Regarding the drug
transaction between Bright and the CI, Officer Leighton testified, “I can tell
you without a doubt, 100 percent, that day I saw one person interact with my
informants and that was [Bright].” Id. at 31. Defense counsel asserted a
-2-
J-S06021-20
defense of mistaken identity and argued that “[t]here’s a black male in the
area that looks just like my client. . . . The only people who can truly identify
him who handed him the drugs are the confidential informants.” Id. at 36, 37.
Counsel provided no evidence to support the assertion that there was a black
male in the area who resembled Bright. The trial court denied the motion and
Bright proceeded to a jury trial. The jury convicted Bright of the above offense
and the trial court sentenced him to 18 to 36 months’ incarceration. Bright
filed a post-sentence motion challenging the weight of the evidence, which the
trial court denied. This timely appeal followed.
Bright raises the following issues before this Court:
1. Did the pre-trial court abuse its discretion in failing to
disclose the identity of the confidential informant [sic] to
the defense?
2. Was the jury’s verdict of guilty on all charges against the
clear weight of the evidence that the Commonwealth
failed to establish that [Bright] sold illegal narcotics to a
confidential informant [sic][?]
Bright’s Br. at 5.
“‘Our standard of review of claims that a trial court erred in its
disposition of a request for disclosure of an informant’s identity is confined to
abuse of discretion.’” Commonwealth v. Washington, 63 A.3d 797, 801
(Pa.Super. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Withrow, 932 A.2d 138, 140
(Pa.Super. 2007)). The Commonwealth has a qualified privilege not to disclose
the identity of a CI. See Withrow, 932 A.2d at 140-41. Thus, where a
defendant seeks a CI’s identity, the defendant must first show “that [the]
-3-
J-S06021-20
request for disclosure is reasonable and that the information sought to be
obtained through disclosure is material to the defense.” Id. at 141. Thus,
although the defendant need not predict absolutely what the CI would say,
the defendant must “demonstrate at least a reasonable possibility the
informant's testimony would exonerate him.” Id.
It is only after the defendant carries this initial burden does the trial
court then exercise its discretion and “determine whether the information is
to be revealed.” Id. A defendant fails to carry the initial burden to show that
the CI’s identity would be material to a defense of mistaken identity where
the record contains no evidentiary basis on which the defendant could assert
the defense. See Commonwealth v. Marsh, 997 A.2d 318, 322 (Pa. 2010)
(opinion announcing the judgment of the court); id. at 325 (Saylor, J.,
concurring).2
Here, Bright claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to
disclose the identity of the CI because “Bright was not arrested until six
months after the lone officer’s observation. His trial testimony did not occur
until more than one year later in October of 2018 raising the possibility that
the officer’s memory of the incident was mistaken.” Bright’s Br. at 11. He
maintains that because of this, he has “shown that the identity of the
____________________________________________
2 Although the lead opinion in Marsh was a plurality of three justices, the
concurring opinion agreed with the lead opinion that appellant had failed to
meet his initial burden because of “the lack of record support[.]” Marsh, 997
A.2d at 325 (Saylor, J., concurring). The concurring opinion was joined by the
participating justices who had not joined the lead opinion, such that the Marsh
Court’s decision on this point is controlling precedent.
-4-
J-S06021-20
confidential informants was material to his defense and his request was
reasonable.” Id. Bright also asserts that the facts in Commonwealth v.
Carter, 233 A.2d 284 (Pa. 1967), are “analogous.” Id. at 10.
In Carter, the Commonwealth charged Carter with “felonious
possession and sale of narcotic drugs[.]” Carter, 233 A.2d at 285. Other than
Carter, there were only two witnesses to the sale: the CI and an undercover
officer. Id. at 286. The undercover officer testified about the sale and
identified Carter. A federal agent conducting remote surveillance testified that
he could not see the transaction, but did identify Carter. Id. The undercover
officer and the federal agent did not encounter Carter again until Carter’s
arrest six months later, and they based their identification of Carter “on a
single meeting.” Id. On cross-examination of the undercover officer, defense
counsel asked the officer for the identity of the CI. See id. The Commonwealth
objected and the court sustained the objection. See id. Our Supreme Court
reversed, concluding that under the circumstances, the Commonwealth should
have disclosed the name of the CI, noting “the limited opportunity” the
undercover officer and the federal agent had to observe the seller. Id. at 287.
This case is easily distinguishable. Defense counsel provided no
evidentiary support for his claim of “a black male in the area that looks just
like my client.” Moreover, Officer Leighton did not base his identification of
Bright “on a single meeting.” He testified that he had known Bright for more
than 10 years and had had numerous contacts with Bright over the years. In
view of this testimony, which the trial court credited, Bright failed to make the
-5-
J-S06021-20
requisite threshold showing of materiality and reasonableness. See Marsh,
997 A.2d at 322.3 In short, Bright “failed to offer an explanation of how the
[CI’s] testimony, in light of Officer Leighton’s observation of the delivery, could
have aided in his defense.” TCO at 5, 6.
Officer Leighton, who has conducted hundreds of controlled
buys, testified at both the pre-trial hearing and at trial that
he personally observed [Bright] take something out of the
trunk of his car and place it on the curb next to the
confidential informants’ car for one of the confidential
informants to retrieve. Officer Leighton’s view of the buy
was unobstructed and he testified that he is “certain”
[Bright] was the seller. Officer Leighton was able to identity
[Bright] as the seller because he has known [Bright] for over
ten years and has interacted with [Bright] on more than one
occasion in the over ten years that he has known him.
Trial Ct. Op. at 5 (citations to notes of testimony omitted). The trial court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Bright’s motion to disclose the identity of
the CIs.
Next, Bright argues the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
He claims that “the trial court abused its discretion in denying the weight of
evidence motion because of the many facts which point to [Bright’s]
innocence.” Bright’s Br. at 13. These facts include that “[t]he officer’s
observation from 206 yards was obstructed” and “[Officer Leighton’s] claim
that he used binoculars to enhance his view is undercut by failure to add this
important detail to either his testimony at a prior hearing or in his police
report.” Id. at 15. He also alleges that there was “no physical evidence” to
____________________________________________
3 See also Marsh, 997 A.2d at 325 (Saylor, J., concurring).
-6-
J-S06021-20
support Officer Leighton’s claim that he observed a drug sale between Bright
and the CI. Id.
Our standard of review regarding a claim challenging the weight of the
evidence is as follows:
Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise
of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the
verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Because the
trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the
evidence presented, an appellate court will give the gravest
consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the
trial judge when reviewing a trial court's determination that
the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. One of the
least assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial
is the lower court's conviction that the verdict was or was
not against the weight of the evidence and that a new trial
should be granted in the interest of justice.
Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (citations and
emphasis omitted). “[T]he finder of fact while passing upon the credibility of
witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part
or none of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Roberts, 133 A.3d 759, 767
(Pa.Super. 2016) (citation omitted). Additionally, the Commonwealth “may
sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.” Commonwealth v.
Colon-Plaza, 136 A.3d 521, 526 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citation omitted).
Here, the trial court rejected Bright’s weight claim, concluding, “The
evidence presented at trial shows that [Bright] did, in fact, knowingly deliver
cocaine to a confidential informant and nothing in the record shocks this
-7-
J-S06021-20
Court’s sense of justice or cries out for a new trial in order to permit justice to
prevail.” Trial Ct. Op. at 8.
Officer Leighton testified that he witnessed the actual
transfer of crack cocaine on September 26, 2017:
One of the informants had exited the
vehicle, approached Mr. Bright on foot,
who was standing in the roadway. They
had a brief interaction.
At that time, the informant then walked
back to the informant vehicle and
reentered the vehicle. Mr. Bright then
walked to the area of the trunk of the blue
Chevy Impala. My vantage point at this
time is I’m looking at the front of the
vehicle. So when Mr. Bright walked behind
the vehicle and raises the trunk, I can only
see the top of his head or the top of the
raised trunk. Mr. Bright does- did – he
remained there in front of the trunk for
approximately maybe a minute or two
minutes.
And at that time, he walked over to the
passenger side of the vehicle at the curb,
bent over, motioned to the CI vehicle, the
CI exited the vehicle, walked up, bent
down in the area where I had saw Mr.
Bright bend down, then turned around
and walked back to the CI vehicle. At that
time, the CI vehicle immediately left the
area.
What I can tell you is that the entire time
that the CI vehicle was there, no other
persons approached that vehicle, and the
informant then exited the vehicle, had
contact with no other people or interacted
with no other people other than Mr.
Bright.
-8-
J-S06021-20
The jury chose to believe Officer Leighton’s testimony and
we found no basis to overturn the jury’s decision. Further,
lab testing of the drugs that the police recovered from the
confidential informants confirmed to be crack cocaine.
Id. at 7-8 (citations to notes of testimony and case law omitted).
Bright’s weight claim lacks merit. The trial court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that the verdict was not objectively shocking. See
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (Pa. 2000). We therefore
affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/22/20
-9-