Court Opinion

ID: 9729792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:49:03.980563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:59.661601
License: Public Domain

WATKINS, President Judge:
Appellant, Joseph F. Biancone, was charged with receiving stolen property and aiding consummation of a crime. The stolen property consisted of guns and rifles. He was tried before Judge Reed, specially presiding, and a jury, and was found guilty of the charges. Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than two years and a fine of $2,500.00.
In this appeal, several issues are raised. Appellant’s first contention is that the court below erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on the following testimony by a state policeman who participated in a search of the appellant’s premises pursuant to a search warrant.
*37“Q. Did you make a search of the entire premises of Mr. Biancone’s house?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Will you tell us what else you saw and did in the course of that search?
“A. During the course of the search, I had occasion to search a suspended ceiling, the new grid type of suspended ceiling, where there are metal grids suspended from the ceiling, and there are panels placed on top of those grids. I lifted up one of the panels and looked inside. In there, I found a 410 gauge shotgun pistol .
“Q. Was anything else up there?
“A. Yes, sir, there was.
“Q. What?
“A. There was a bag of what appeared to be marijuana.”
Appellant’s counsel objected to the answer, and the court sustained the objection. Appellant also moved for a mistrial on the ground that the answer was highly inflammatory. The motion was denied, and we agree that this was proper.
Appellant contends that the answer of the state policeman that he found what appeared to be marijuana was at the “insistence and request” of the Assistant District Attorney. The record does not support appellant’s characterization of the answer. The state policeman also found money above the panels which belonged to the appellant, and he testified to this immediately after his testimony about the marijuana. When the prosecutor asked the police officer what else was above the panels, he might have anticipated that the officer’s answer would have been that money was also above the panels. The record does not reveal a deliberate attempt by the prosecution to bring in evidence of a substance that might be marijuana.
The decision whether to declare a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed unless there is a flagrant abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Conti, 236 Pa.Super. 488, 345 A.2d 238 *38(1975). We do not believe that the court below abused its discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial. It must be noted that the police officer did not state that he found marijuana above the ceiling panels, but only something that “appeared to be marijuana.” The appellant’s objection to the answer was sustained and there was no further pursuit of the question to determine whether the substance was tested or whether the officer was qualified to give an opinion concerning the contents of the bag.
Where a reasonable inference of a prior criminal record is present in the minds of the jurors, a new trial is required. Commonwealth v. Allen, 448 Pa. 177, 292 A.2d 373 (1972). Therefore, the issue to be decided is whether the reference to marijuana in the context of this case was tantamount to the improper introduction of evidence of a prior criminal record by the Commonwealth and so prejudiced the jury as to deprive the appellant of a fair trial. We believe that the appellant is not entitled to a new trial as the reference to the marijuana, if erroneous, was harmless error. Error may be harmless if it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not affect the result. Commonwealth v. Jones, 233 Pa.Super. 52, 335 A.2d 444 (1975). We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and find that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. A passing reference by the police officer to finding what appeared to be marijuana could not have determined the outcome of the case. We have considered the lack of cautionary instructions by the court and believe that such instructions were not required. The police officer did not state that he found marijuana, and cautionary instructions to the jury directing them to disregard any evidence of prior criminal convictions might well have confused the jury.
Reference to prior criminal activity by a defendant is not the type of error that always requires the grant of a new trial. Even where a witness stated that the defendant was “in jail before,” the issue was not considered on appeal where no objection had been made at trial. Commonwealth v. Smith, 238 Pa.Super. 422, 357 A.2d 583 (1976).
*39In order to necessitate a new trial, there must be a reasonable indication of prior criminal activity. In Commonwealth v. Rivers, 238 Pa.Super. 319, 357 A.2d 553 (1976), a state policeman testified that the defendant “said he had done a lot of Federal time before.” 238 Pa.Super. at 322, 357 A.2d at 555. This Court granted a new trial and stated 238 Pa.Super. at pages 322-323, 357 A.2d at page 555: “As long as the jury can reasonably infer prior criminal activity from the evidence presented, prejudicial error has been committed.” There is no doubt that the jury could reasonably infer prior criminal activity of a serious nature by one who has been sentenced by a federal court and has served time in a federal prison.
The dissenting opinion cites Commonwealth v. Williams, 230 Pa.Super. 72, 327 A.2d 367 (1974) to support the requirement of an admonishment to the jury to disregard any testimony about prior offenses. In Commonwealth v. Williams, supra, the witness in telling why the defendant looked different to her stated: “Well, if a man is without drugs for nine days he may gain a little weight.” 230 Pa.Super. at 74, 327 A.2d at 368. The Court sustained an objection, but denied a mistrial. The judge also instructed the jury to totally disregard the answer. In Commonwealth v. Williams, supra, the witness gave her opinion as to why the defendant looked different and based it on her theory that he had stopped taking drugs for nine days and had therefore gained weight. In the instant case, the witness merely stated that he found a bag which appeared to contain marijuana. He also stated that he found other things including a gun and money in the same location. We find that the reference to marijuana was so brief that cautionary instructions were not required.
Appellant next contends that the search warrant which formed the basis of the search of December 19, 1973 was invalid and that the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant should have been suppressed. We find in the circumstances of this case, that the search warrant was sufficiently specific and the fact that it contained some *40inaccuracies does not vitiate the warrant. Judge Hoffman, in his dissenting opinion, fully discusses the issue of the-validity of the search warrant and found it to be sufficient.
Appellant also contends that the court below erred when it stated in its charge that the jury could rightfully and correctly infer from the mere possession of the guns that the defendant had knowledge or reason to know that the guns were stolen. We have reviewed the charge, and nowhere do we find that the trial judge instructed the jury as appellant claims. The trial judge stated: “. . . you are permitted to draw from the facts which you find have been proven such reasonable and logical inferences as you may find from said proven facts. Of course, an inference is a process of reasoning by which a fact or a proposition sought to be established is deducted as a logical consequence or a state of facts already proved or admitted by the evidence.” The charge did not instruct the jury that it could infer from the mere possession of the guns involved that the defendant knew or had reason to know that the guns were stolen.
Appellant also contends that the sentence was excessive. He argues that he received a greater sentence because he demanded a jury trial than he would have received had he entered a guilty plea. Even where a co-defendant receives a less severe sentence than a defendant, this is not grounds for reversing or reducing the defendant’s sentence. Commonwealth v. Stanton, 239 Pa.Super. 47, 362 A.2d 355 (1976). The trial court has broad discretion in imposing sentence. The sentence in this case was within the statutory limit and, therefore, appellate review is limited to those situations in which the lower court abused its discretion. Commonwealth v. Ruza, 238 Pa.Super. 9, 352 A.2d 94 (1975). We find that the court below did not abuse its. discretion in imposing sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
HOFFMAN, J., files a dissenting opinion in which CERCONE and SPAETH, JJ., join.