Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 7/22/24 Zak Goldstein 7/22/24

PA Supreme Court: Defendant May Appeal Adverse Ruling on Motion in Limine Even Where Defendant Preemptively Introduces Damaging Evidence

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Raheem Stevenson, holding that a defendant may still appeal a trial court’s pre-trial ruling on the admissibility of a prior conviction even if the defendant preemptively introduces the harmful evidence during direct examination.

The Facts of Stevenson

The defendant and his co-defendant were arrested for an alleged armed robbery that took place in 2017. During trial, the Commonwealth moved in limine to introduce evidence that the defendant had a prior 2005 conviction for burglary. The defense objected, but the trial court found that the evidence was properly admissible.

The trial court issued its ruling prior to trial as part of a hearing on a motion in limine. A motion in limine allows the parties to get a ruling from the trial judge on the admissibility of certain evidence prior to the trial or prior to the testimony itself so that neither party has to be surprised by the eventual ruling when the issue comes up during the trial. This lets the parties know what evidence they may mention during opening statements and potentially avoid triggering a mistrial by introducing evidence that should not come in.

In order to mitigate against the potential impact of this prior conviction, the defense attorney asked the defendant about it when he testified on direct examination. When damaging evidence is going to come in no matter what, it is often strategic for the affected party to introduce it themselves and avoid looking like they were attempting to hide it. It may also give the party the opportunity to explain the circumstances or provide more detail where helpful. Here, the trial attorney objected to the admission of the evidence in advance. But when the trial court ruled that it would be admissible, the attorney decided it would be strategic to have his client testify about it rather than waiting for the Commonwealth to bring it up in cross-examination.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The jury convicted the defendant, and the defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. On appeal, the defendant raised the issue of whether the trial court improperly allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence of the prior burglary conviction. The Superior Court affirmed, but it did so because it found that the defense had waived the issue for appeal by introducing the evidence on direct examination. The Superior Court concluded that the defendant could not complain about evidence that he had introduced himself. The Superior Court relied primarily on the United States Supreme Court case of Ohler v. United States. There, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a defendant who introduces evidence preemptively cannot later claim it was admitted in error. That is still the rule in federal court.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's decision, concluding that the rule in Ohler should not apply under Pennsylvania law. Under Pennsylvania law, the defendant may still raise the issue on appeal even if the defendant preemptively introduced the bad evidence where there was clearly a hearing on a motion in limine, the prosecution clearly made a request, the defendant clearly objected, and the trial court made an unequivocal ruling in favor of the prosecution prior to trial. Where the trial court’s ruling is unambiguous and the defense has definitely objected to the prosecution’s request, the defense may preemptively introduce the harmful evidence without waiving the issue for appeal.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court emphasized that under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 103, a defendant preserves the right to appeal a ruling on evidence admissibility by making a motion in limine. The rule does not require the defendant to renew the objection during the trial once the court has made a definitive ruling.

The Court recognized that defense attorneys sometimes need to preemptively disclose potentially damaging evidence to mitigate its impact. This strategy is a legitimate trial tactic. Forcing defendants to forgo this tactic to preserve their right to appeal would be unfair and contrary to the principles of a fair trial.

The Court noted that while federal courts take a different approach under the Ohler case, many state Supreme Courts have rejected Ohler and adopted the reasoning of the dissent in that case. The dissent in Ohler argued that a defendant should not lose the right to appeal a ruling simply because they chose to introduce the evidence themselves after an adverse in limine ruling. The Court noted that Pennsylvania civil cases have upheld the right to appeal adverse rulings after preemptive disclosure. Thus, in federal court, a defendant must choose between trying to disarm the damaging evidence following an adverse ruling and preserving the issue for appeal, but in Pennsylvania state court, the defendant may preemptively introduce the evidence so long as the objection was clearly made in advance.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein — Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

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 and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. 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 7/19/24 Zak Goldstein 7/19/24

Attorney Goldstein again selected to Superlawyers Rising Stars list

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, has been selected to the 2024 Pennsylvania Superlawyers Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in the practice of law. For more information about Super Lawyers, visit SuperLawyers.com.

Read Attorney Goldstein’s Profile on Superlawyers.com

Zak Goldstein 7/12/24 Zak Goldstein 7/12/24

Smith v. Arizona: United States Supreme Court Holds Expert May Not Testify to Absent Lab Analyst’s Testing Results if Analyst Unavailable

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided the case of Smith v. Arizona. In Smith, the Court held that when an expert conveys an absent lab analyst’s statements to support their opinion, and those statements must be true in order for the opinion to be accurate, the statements are admitted as evidence for their truth. If the statements are also testimonial, then their admission is barred by the Confrontation Clause. However, the Court did not decide whether the statements in this case were definitively testimonial, instead remanding that issue to the state court for further consideration.

The Facts in Smith v. Arizona

In December 2019, law enforcement officers in Yuma County, Arizona, arrested Jason Smith inside a shed during the execution of a search warrant. The officers discovered a large quantity of suspected drugs and drug-related items, leading to Smith being charged with multiple drug offenses, including possession of methamphetamine, marijuana, and cannabis for sale, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Smith pleaded not guilty, and the case proceeded to trial.

During trial preparations, the State sent the seized items to the Department of Public Safety's crime lab for analysis, identifying Smith as the suspect and providing details of his charges. Analyst Elizabeth Rast conducted the tests and documented her findings in detailed notes and a signed report. Her report concluded that the items contained usable quantities of methamphetamine, marijuana, and cannabis.

Initially, the State intended for Rast to testify at Smith’s trial. However, Rast left the lab before the trial for unspecified reasons. Instead, the State called Greggory Longoni as a substitute expert to testify based on Rast’s records, although Longoni did not conduct any independent testing. Longoni’s testimony, which relied on Rast’s records, led to Smith’s conviction.

Smith appealed, arguing that Longoni’s testimony violated his Confrontation Clause rights because he was unable to cross-examine Rast, whose statements formed the basis of Longoni’s opinion. The Arizona State Court of Appeals affirmed Smith’s conviction, reasoning that an expert could testify to the substance of a non-testifying expert’s analysis if it formed the basis of their opinion.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court rejected the Arizona Court of Appeals' reasoning, focusing on whether Rast’s statements were introduced for their truth. The Court stated that if Rast’s statements were used to establish that the events documented in her report actually occurred, then they were admitted for their truth. Furthermore, the Court assumed that since the testing and records were made for evidentiary purposes, Rast’s statements were testimonial.

The Court emphasized that if an expert’s testimony conveys an out-of-court statement to support their opinion, and the statement supports the opinion only if true, then the statement is admitted for its truth. The inability to cross-examine the analyst themselves on the reliability of the testing and the expert’s reliance on that underlying testing leaves the jury with an unchallenged assumption of truth and the defense with no opportunity to challenge that assumption. This is exactly what the Confrontation Clause forbids.

The Takeaway

This is an important decision. Under prior precedent, the prosecution had been able to use substitute experts to testify to what other expert witnesses did. That procedure, however, leaves the defense completely unable to challenge the credibility of the actual people who did the testing. This decision reinforces the defendant's right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against them, ensuring the integrity and fairness of the judicial process.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case?

Zak Goldstein 7/6/24 Zak Goldstein 7/6/24

PA Superior Court: Police May Temporarily Seize Gun in Plain View During Traffic Stop

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein — Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Hawkins-Davenport, holding that if the police see a gun in plain view during a traffic stop, they may temporarily seize and secure the gun during the stop. They may also ask the driver of the vehicle if they have a license to carry the gun.

The Facts of Hawkins-Davenport

Philadelphia Police Officers McCabe and Torres conducted a traffic stop of the defendant because his driver’s side brake light was not working. Officer Torres approached the passenger side of the car while his partner went to the driver’s side, and Officer Torres immediately saw a gun sitting on the passenger seat. Officer Torres reached into the car and took the gun. He then held onto it for the remainder of the stop, and he asked the defendant if the defendant had a license to carry the firearm. The defendant told him that the did not have a license, so the police arrested him. Philadelphia prosecutors charged the defendant with gun charges including carrying a firearm without a license in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 and carrying a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108.

The defendant moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the police illegally searched the car and seized the gun because they had no reason to believe that he was going to use the gun on them or that he possessed the gun illegally before they seized it. He also argued that his statement that he did not have a license to carry should be suppressed because the police seized the gun without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and questioned him without first giving him Miranda warnings. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, ruling that the traffic stop was legal but the police had no reason to seize the gun or question the defendant about it. The Commonwealth appealed.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that Officer Torres's actions in securing the firearm were justified as a necessary precaution to ensure officer safety during the traffic stop. The prosecution contended that the trial court erred in suppressing the firearm and the defendant’s statements given the context of the situation in which the police did nothing more than secure the gun for officer safety purposes during a brief traffic stop.

The Superior Court agreed with the Commonwealth and reversed. The Court reviewed the transcripts and the body cam footage and agreed that the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. The Court also found that the officer had the right to secure the firearm that was in plain view during the traffic stop regardless of whether the gun was legally or illegally possessed. The Court noted that officers have the right to take reasonable precautions to ensure their safety during traffic stops. The Court referenced prior cases such as Commonwealth v. Ross and Pennsylvania v. Mimms, noting that securing a firearm observed in plain view is a reasonable safety measure. Further, the officers did not unlawfully extend the stop by asking just one question as to whether the defendant had a license to carry. Therefore, the trial court should not have granted the motion to suppress, and the Superior Court reversed.

In this case, the Superior Court approved of the officers’ actions because they were focused on officer safety, the gun was just out and sitting on the passenger seat, and the officers did not extend the stop by extensively questioning the defendant. They had the right to take quick action to secure the gun and ask a question about the legality of the gun. The result likely would have been different had the gun not been so obviously in plain view or had the police needed to significantly prolong the stop in order to question the defendant about firearms and firearms licenses.