Court Opinion

ID: 9962069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 16:12:32.281307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:47.808093
License: Public Domain

J-S43008-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  COREY MICHAEL STROPE                         :   No. 249 MDA 2023

              Appeal from the Order Entered January 12, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-08-CR-0000536-2022

BEFORE:      McLAUGHLIN, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                           FILED: APRIL 22, 2024

       The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the order granting the

petition for habeas corpus filed by the defendant, Corey Michael Strope, and

dismissing the charges. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

       The Commonwealth charged Strope with two counts each of delivery of

a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance. 1 At the

preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Detective

David Hart. The trial court summarized his testimony as follows:

       On or about January, 2022, Bradford County Detective Hart met
       with a confidential informant [(“CI”)] to make a controlled
       purchase of controlled substances from a Robbie White at White’s
       apartment at 925 South Main Street, Towanda, PA. That address
       [was] known to law enforcement as a place where illegal drugs
       were being sold out of various apartments in the building. The
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See 35 P.S §§ 780-113(a)(30) and (a)(16), respectively.
J-S43008-23

      building consists of 4-5 apartments. CI was searched wherein no
      contraband or money was found. Upon arrival at the apartment
      building, Detective observed [Strope’s] vehicle parked there. CI
      was instructed that if [he] could make a purchase from [Strope],
      to do so. CI was provided pre-recorded money to purchase the
      narcotics. CI was observed to walk down the driveway toward
      back of building at which time CI was out of view. The CI returned.
      He handed over to Detectives methamphetamine and marijuana
      (later lab tested positive for such substances). CI told Detective
      that he had purchased the substances from [Strope,] who was in
      White’s apartment. CI also returned $40.00 of the prerecorded
      money to a detective (he originally had $200.00 of prerecorded
      money). CI was searched and no other money or contraband was
      found.

Trial Court Memorandum Opinion, 1/13/23, at 2. The CI did not testify at the

preliminary hearing. The magisterial district judge bound the charges for trial.

      Strope filed in Common Pleas Court a pretrial petition for habeas corpus,

arguing that the Commonwealth had failed to present a prima facie case

because it had relied solely on hearsay to establish Strope’s involvement. The

Commonwealth responded that Strope had not moved to disclose the CI’s

identity prior to the preliminary hearing and had not carried his burden to

prove the necessity of disclosing the CI’s identity.

      The trial court granted the habeas corpus petition and quashed the

charges. Relying in part on Commonwealth v. Harris, 269 A.3d 534,

(Pa.Super.), appeal granted, 285 A.3d 883 (Pa. 2022), the court found that

“[a]lthough the Commonwealth has a qualified privilege to withhold the

identity of a confidential source, said privilege does not extend to presenting

non-hearsay evidence in support of material elements of a crime at a

preliminary hearing.” Id. at 6.

                                      -2-
J-S43008-23

       The Commonwealth appealed.2 It raises two issues:

   A. Did the Suppression Court err in granting the Writ of Habeas
      Corpus on the grounds/reasoning of Harris/McClelland?[3]

   B. Did the Suppression Court err in finding that the Commonwealth
      did not present a prima facie case at the preliminary hearing?

Commonwealth’s Br. at 3 (lower court’s answers and suggested answers

omitted).

       Our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.

Commonwealth v. Sutton, --- A.3d ---, 2024 WL 1163627, at *2 (Pa.Super.

filed Mar. 19, 2024). “We review a decision to grant a pre-trial petition for a

writ of habeas corpus by examining the evidence and reasonable inferences

derived therefrom in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth.”

Commonwealth v. Dantzler, 135 A.3d 1109, 1111 (Pa.Super. 2016) (en

banc). Whether the Commonwealth has presented prima facie evidence of a

crime is a question of law. Id. at 1112. “To demonstrate that a prima facie

case exists, the Commonwealth must produce evidence of every material

element of the charged offense(s) as well as the defendant’s complicity

therein.” Id. (citation omitted).

       In its first issue, the Commonwealth argues that it has a qualified

privilege not to disclose the identity of a CI until the defendant moves for

____________________________________________

2 Although the court dismissed the charges without prejudice, our jurisdiction

is proper pursuant to Commonwealth v. Merced, 265 A.3d 786, 790-91
(Pa.Super. 2021), and Harris, 269 A.3d at 538-39.
3 See Commonwealth v. McClelland, 233 A.3d 717 (Pa. 2020).

                                           -3-
J-S43008-23

disclosure and proves that the CI’s identity is material to the preparation of a

defense. It asserts that Harris and its predecessors could not overrule the

decisions establishing this rule. It contends that forcing the Commonwealth to

present the CI at the preliminary hearing would relieve the defendant of his

burden, render the decisions regarding disclosure obsolete, and frustrate law

enforcement’s ability to use CIs.

        The Commonwealth also argues that the rationale for prohibiting it from

relying purely on inadmissible hearsay at the preliminary hearing is to ensure

that it will be able to prove its case at trial through non-hearsay evidence. It

contends that rationale is inapplicable here, where it has presented non-

hearsay evidence and where it intends to present the CI’s testimony at trial.

It also argues that Harris is distinguishable. In Harris, this Court held that

while    some   hearsay   is   admissible   at   the   preliminary   hearing,   the

Commonwealth could not rely solely on hearsay to establish that the

defendant was the person who committed the alleged crime. 269 A.3d at 546-

47. The Commonwealth distinguishes Harris on the grounds that there, it was

the crime victim, not a CI, who failed to appear at the preliminary hearing. It

further emphasizes that because the victim in Harris was not cooperating

with authorities, the prosecution there would never be able to present the

victim’s live testimony at trial. The Commonwealth contrasts Harris with the

circumstances here, where it will have the CI appear and testify at trial.

        Our Court recently confronted this issue in Commonwealth v. Sutton.

There, as here, the trial court relied on Harris to hold that the Commonwealth

                                      -4-
J-S43008-23

had failed to present a prima facie case at the preliminary hearing because it

had relied on hearsay to establish that the defendant was the perpetrator of

the   crime    alleged.   See Sutton, 2024            WL   1163627, at *3-4. The

Commonwealth argued on appeal that the court had erred because the

defendant had not proven the need for disclosure of the CI’s identity pursuant

to the existing qualified privilege rubric.4

       This Court reversed. We explained that Harris did not “vitiate

jurisprudence     that    has   promoted       an   accountable,   prescribed   system

recognizing a qualified privilege of keeping informants’ identities confidential

and permitting use of their statements to law enforcement at preliminary

hearings.” Id. at *4. We held that because “Harris did not involve the use of

a confidential informant nor . . . discuss the qualified privilege as to disclosure

of a confidential informant,” the trial court had erred in holding the

Commonwealth was required to produce the CI at the preliminary hearing

without deciding the issue pursuant to authority pertaining to the use of

confidential informants. Id. at *6; see also id. at *7 (“The qualified privilege

____________________________________________

4 When a defendant moves for disclosure of a CI’s identity, the defendant must

establish “that the information sought is material to the preparation of the
defense and that the request is reasonable.” Commonwealth v. Marsh, 997
A.2d 318, 321–22 (Pa. 2010) (opinion announcing the judgment of the court);
see also Commonwealth v. Ellison, 213 A.3d 312, 316-17 (Pa.Super.
2019). The court must weigh the relevant factors to determine whether to
order disclosure, based on “the particular circumstances of each case, taking
into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible
significance of the informer’s testimony, and other relevant factors essential
to a fair balancing of the competing interests involved.” Marsh, 997 A.2d at
321.

                                           -5-
J-S43008-23

predates the holdings of Harris and [McClelland], and neither decision

addressed the use of CIs or indicated an intention of modifying the qualified

privilege rubric”). We also held Harris did not control because, as in the

instant case, the Commonwealth represented to the trial court that it would

produce the CI’s direct testimony at trial. Id. at *4. We further observed that

the Commonwealth had established a “connection” between Sutton and the

controlled buys through direct evidence. We pointed out that the detective

testified that he had observed the CI enter Sutton’s residence before each

controlled buy, possessing only prerecorded buy money, and exit possessing

a controlled substance. Id. at *6.

      Pursuant to Sutton, we hold the trial court erred in determining the

Commonwealth failed to establish a prima facie case simply because it relied

on the hearsay testimony repeating a CI’s statements to establish Strope’s

involvement, when the Commonwealth also presented other, non-hearsay

evidence. Strope did not move for disclosure of the CI’s identity and the trial

court did not determine disclosure was warranted under the established

jurisprudence   pertaining   to   that   question.   And,   as   in   Sutton,   the

Commonwealth states it will produce the CI at trial.

      In addition, the Commonwealth offered non-hearsay testimony to

establish its prima facie case. See McClelland, 233 A.3d at 736 (holding the

defendant’s right to due process is violated when the Commonwealth is

permitted to rely solely on hearsay to establish a prima facie case at the

preliminary hearing). Detective Hart testified that he searched the CI before

                                         -6-
J-S43008-23

he entered the residence, and again on his way out, and found the CI had

obtained controlled substances in the interim. Furthermore, as in Sutton,

there was direct evidence of a “connection” between the defendant and the

alleged crime. Detective Hart testified that he observed Strope’s car outside

of White’s residence and instructed the CI to buy from Strope in addition to

White. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,

and making all reasonable inferences in its favor, the evidence was sufficient

to prove a prima facie case. The trial court erred in concluding otherwise.

      Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction

relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/22/2024

                                     -7-