Opinion ID: 2066555
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Appellant's request to inspect property receipt

Text: Appellant next claims that the PCRA court erred in failing to allow the defense to inspect with expert assistance the date recorded on a property receipt as to the timing of a chemical test preformed on the passenger seat headrest of the Taurus. Appellant's Brief at 70. Appellant alleges that although Ronald McCoy, the forensic analyst who filled out the receipt, testified that the test was performed on May 5, 1993, the receipt plainly records the test date as 8/5 and therefore confirms that the Commonwealth had no excuse for waiting to produce the[ ] [test results] until the second day of trial. Id. at 69. In response, the Commonwealth offers four independent reasons why this claim fails: (1) appellant fails to cite any authority to support it; (2) the PCRA court was able to read the date and determine McCoy's credibility without specialized knowledge beyond that possessed by a layperson, Pa.R.E. 702; (3) appellant fails to address the fact that the receipt plainly recorded the year as 1993, not 1992; and, in any event, (4) the relevant date for discovery purposes was not the date of the test but, rather, the date or dates the test results were provided to the prosecutor and defense counsel. The PCRA court determined that appellant failed to develop this claim because he did not cite the notes of testimony to support his assertions that defense counsel requested an inspection of the receipt and that the PCRA court denied the request. At the PCRA hearing, counsel for the Commonwealth asked Mr. McCoy to read aloud entries he had made on the property receipt in his handwriting. When asked to read the date and time when McCoy began performing the test on the headrest, McCoy testified: It says 5/5/93, 8:15 a.m. N.T., 10/6/04, at 131; see also id. at 128 (McCoy testifying that he performed the test in May 1993). After McCoy read aloud other entries on the receipt, the prosecutor returned to the date and time when the test was begun: Q. Mr. McCoy, can I direct your attention to the date, first date listed where you performed the exam? A. Yes. Q. You testified that you did the exam on May 5th, 1993? A. Yes, I did. Q. When I read that date, it looks like an eight. You know your handwriting better than I do. Is that an eight or five? A. It's a five. Id. at 136. The above PCRA testimony of McCoy is consistent with testimony McCoy gave as to the timing of the test on the third day of trial, just six days after he performed the test. See N.T., 5/11/93, at 506. Instantly, appellant fails to note that there was no dispute in the PCRA court that the property receipt recorded the year as [']93, see N.T., 10/7/04 (p.m.), at 11. Although not explained in his Brief to this Court, the purpose of appellant's request for an expert inspection of the receipt was, in the words of appellant's PCRA counsel, to subject it to infrared and/or ultraviolet testing ... [t]o see whether the three was at one point a two. Id. at 12. The PCRA court rejected the request as untimely, as appellant did not raise a challenge to the year McCoy performed the test until the day after McCoy testified. Id. at 6-12. Appellant's failures to develop this claim consistently with the challenge as raised to the PCRA court and to address the court's timeliness determination preclude meaningful appellate review of the court's denial of appellant's request for an expert inspection of the receipt. In any event, even assuming the timeliness of the request, and even assuming that the test was actually conducted in August 1992 rather than May 1993, the instant claim ignores the PCRA court's determination that the Commonwealth turned over [McCoy's] report as soon as it became available, PCRA Ct. Op. at 42. In reaching this determination, the trial court cited McCoy's trial testimony that he prepared the report on May 10, 1993, id. at 40 (citing N.T., 5/11/93, at 499-507), as well as defense counsel's representation to the court that he was provided with a copy of the report on that same date, id. (citing N.T., 5/10/93, at 345-47). Instantly, appellant does not dispute either that the report was prepared on May 10, 1993 or that it was provided to both parties later that same day. Therefore, because the timing of the chemical test on the headrest is irrelevant to whether the Commonwealth failed to timely disclose the results of the test, the instant claim is unavailing.