Court Opinion

ID: 9952043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 16:15:13.934064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:56.847215
License: Public Domain

J-S45038-23

                                   2024 PA Super 50

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :         PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  SCOTT LEE SUTTON                             :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :    No. 373 MDA 2023

              Appeal from the Order Entered February 8, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-08-CR-0000613-2022

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

CONCURRING OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.:                       FILED: MARCH 19, 2024

       I concur in the result, but write separately because, in my view, we need

not address whether Harris1 requires disclosure of a CI under the facts of this

case. I agree with the Majority’s recitation of our standard of review and the

applicable standards of law and, thus, do not reiterate them here.

       Briefly, at the preliminary hearing, Detective Michael Lamana, testified

that he spoke with the confidential informant (CI), and learned that Scott Lee

Sutton was dealing drugs out of his trailer at 47 Titus Lane.           See N.T.

Preliminary Hearing, 10/14/22, at 5-8.             Subsequently, Detective Lamana

confirmed that Sutton lived at that address because it was Sutton’s verified

probation address, as well as the registered address on his driver’s license.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Commonwealth v. Harris, 269 A.3d 534 (Pa. Super. 2022), reargument

denied (Mar. 14, 2022), appeal granted, 285 A.3d 883 (Pa. 2022).
J-S45038-23

See id. at 8-9.      Detective Lamana further testified that he conducted two

controlled drug buys.        See id. at 6, 9-10 (Detective Lamana describing

procedure used for CI’s drug purchases).         In each controlled drug buy,

Detective Lamana verified that the CI had no drugs or money on their person,

supplied the CI with pre-recorded funds to buy methamphetamine, witnessed

the CI enter and exit the residence, recovered methamphetamine from the

CI. See id. Additionally, Detective Lamana searched the CI confirming that

the CI had no other contraband or money. See id.

       While it is true that Detective Lamana did not personally enter the

residence and witness the sale of drugs from Sutton to the CI, it is also true

that Detective Lamana was able to verify 47 Titus Lane as Sutton’s address

through independent, non-hearsay evidence.        See id. at 8-12.   Moreover,

Detective Lamana was able to testify as to how the drug buys were set up and

conducted. See id. at 10-12.

       In my view, the above testimony qualifies as sufficient verifiable non-

hearsay evidence to satisfy the prima facie standard for a preliminary hearing

set forth in McClelland II and Verbonitz.2 See Harris, 269 A.3d at 547-48

(“Commonwealth must present evidence that . . . establishes not only that a

crime has been committed, but also that it was the defendant who

committed it. . . .       [H]earsay evidence can be introduced to corroborate

____________________________________________

2  See Commonwealth v. McClelland, 233 A.3d 717 (Pa. 2020)
(“McClelland II”); Commonwealth ex. Rel. Buchanan v. Verbonitz, 581
A.2d 172 (Pa. 1999).

                                           -2-
J-S45038-23

direct evidence regarding an element of the crime or crimes charged.”)

(emphasis added); see also McClelland, 233 A.3d at 736 (“The preliminary

hearing seeks to prevent a person from being imprisoned or required to enter

bail for a crime . . . with which there is no evidence of [the defendant’s]

connection.”) (emphasis added). Instantly, the above-testimony describes

circumstantial non-hearsay evidence that directly connects Sutton to the sale

of methamphetamine. Consequently, the Commonwealth did present non-

hearsay evidence qualifying as sufficient verifiable non-hearsay evidence in

accordance with our case law, and that evidence may be properly buttressed

by the hearsay statements of the CI at the preliminary hearing.          See

McClelland, supra.

     Accordingly, in my view, Harris is not implicated herein and we certainly

do not need to decide, at this juncture, whether the CI must be disclosed. I

do, however, concur in the result.

                                     -3-