Opinion ID: 1540179
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plain, Clear and Conclusive Prong of Getz Test.

Text: Campbell contends that the trial court also committed legal error by not conducting any analysis under the `plain, clear and conclusive prong' of the Getz test before admitting evidence of Morales' November 3rd phone call to Campbell. Campbell asserts that the November 3rd telephone call that the State characterizes as an attempt to arrange a drug buy does not present clear and conclusive evidence that Campbell possessed methamphetamine. Campbell maintains that the telephone call transcript indicates that Campbell gave no assent to any drug transaction. There was no mention of drugs in the transcript. To bolster their argument for admitting Morales's November 3rd call to Campbell, the State offered Morales' testimony about calling his cocaine supplier Angel Torres on November 3rd. Morales testified that he called Torres the same evening he called Campbell to tell Torres that it was too late in the evening for Morales to travel to Philadelphia to purchase Torres' cocaine. Campbell denies that Morales' testimony about his conversation with Angel Torres provided plain, clear and conclusive evidence that he possessed methamphetamine on November 3rd. The State also offered GPS tracking evidence to show that Morales was in the vicinity of Campbell's house on the same date that Morales testified he went to pick up drugs from Campbell. The State insists that the GPS tracking evidence and the wiretap corroborated Morales' testimony. Campbell emphasizes that DSP did not recover any drugs or drug paraphernalia from his house that weekend while Campbell was out of town and unaware of the search warrant. Campbell complains that Morales' wiretapped phone call to him is not plain, clear and conclusive evidence of a drug trafficking scheme. The State suggests that [t]estimony alone is sufficiently plain, clear and conclusive. The State relies on Lloyd v. State [17] for the proposition that testimony standing alone is enough to support an element of a crime. In Lloyd, we held that testimony sufficient to support an element of a crime must also be sufficient to show reliability under the plain, clear and conclusive standard articulated in Getz. [18] Our standard of review is abuse of discretion and we will not disturb the trial judge's ruling if it is based on conscience and reason, as opposed to being arbitrary and capricious. [19] Testimony implicating a person's plan to meet to sell drugs could support a criminal conviction for trafficking. The November 3rd phone call transcript is consistent with the GPS tracking evidence and Morales' testimony. Therefore, the evidence of a future drug deal is sufficiently plain, clear, and conclusive to satisfy Getz.