Court Opinion

ID: 9540733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:19:25.603095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:15.706504
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
STEVENS, J.:
¶ 1 I conclude the evidence was sufficient to establish that Appellant had the requisite intent to deliver a controlled substance, and, therefore, I would affirm his judgment of sentence. As such, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 2 It is well-settled that the jury is free to believe all, part, or none of the testimony presented. Commonwealth v. Ross, 856 A.2d 93 (Pa.Super.2004). Here, as the Majority acknowledges, the Commonwealth’s expert opined that, based upon his experience, Appellant’s behavior was consistent with someone who is engaged in drug trafficking. The jury was free to accept this testimony. Ross, supra.
¶ 3 Moreover, I disagree that the circumstantial evidence did not establish the requisite intent. In the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, the evidence revealed that Appellant, who was the passenger in the vehicle, possessed 2.5 grams of cocaine, approximately $9.00, and a cell phone in a high crime area. In addition, his co-defendant, who was the driver of the vehicle, possessed crack cocaine, approximately $387.00, and a cell phone. When taken to the police station, both Appellant and his co-defendant admitted they were unemployed, and the police did not seize from either Appellant or his co-defendant drug paraphernalia which would be used to consume the crack cocaine. The Commonwealth’s expert testified that it was common practice for drug dealers to work in pairs, with one person holding the money and the other person holding the bulk of the narcotics. Based on all of the evidence, I would find the Commonwealth proved Appellant had the requisite intent.
¶ 4 Finally, I note that, while I agree the possession of a cell phone in and of itself is insufficient to establish a criminal intent, when taken together with all of the evidence presented in this case, I conclude the possession of a cell phone was but one piece of evidence establishing Appellant’s intent. In addition, I note that there is no requirement in our law that the Commonwealth prove the existence of plastic baggies or rubber bands in establishing the intent to deliver.