Commonwealth v. Belani
Decision Date | 25 September 2014 |
Docket Number | Nos. 943 EDA 2013,s. 943 EDA 2013 |
Citation | 2014 PA Super 211,101 A.3d 1156 |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Jack BELANI, Appellee. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Wenjue Liu, Appellee. |
Peter Carr, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellant.
Carson B. Morris, Philadelphia, for appellee.
BEFORE: SHOGAN, STABILE and PLATT* , JJ.
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the orders entered on March 1, 2013, precluding the admission of DNA evidence at the trials of Appellees, Jack Belani and Wenjue Liu.1 We are constrained to reverse.
The Commonwealth assails the trial court's orders excluding DNA evidence that would tie Appellees to a robbery during which Appellee Liu shot the victim in the leg. The trial court summarized the facts as follows:
Trial Court Opinion, 8/22/13, at 1–4 (internal citations and some footnotes omitted). The Commonwealth filed timely notices of appeal and concurrently filed statements pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) despite the fact that the trial court had not yet ordered them. On December 6, 2013, we granted the Commonwealth's November 21, 2013 motions to consolidate the cases on appeal.2
The Commonwealth presents the following single issue for our review:
Did the lower court err when, in contravention of controlling precedent, it excluded DNA evidence on the ground that testing had not been performed further in advance of trial?
In excluding the DNA evidence, the trial court's reasoning, at the most basic level, is that if the Commonwealth had sought testing earlier, it would have received its expert's report sooner. The trial court determined that the Commonwealth failed to disclose its expert findings to defense counsel sufficiently in advance of trial, such that defense counsel did not have time to secure their own experts to review the evidence. The court determined that the prosecutor understood that the DNA analysis would take six to eight weeks. Based upon that timeline, the trial court concluded the results should have been finalized and disclosed by late October or early November, 2012, thereby allowing defense counsel sufficient time to retain their own experts to conduct an independent review and analysis before the December 14, 2012 bench trial. Trial Court Opinion, 8/22/13, at 5. Instead, the final reports were not completed until December 6, 2012, more than twelve weeks after submission of the final sample. Id. Although the Commonwealth immediately provided its expert's findings to defense counsel when it received them on December 6th, the defense did not have sufficient time to secure its own expert analysis. Id. at 5–6.
We have reviewed the record, including the notes of testimony, and considered the arguments of the parties, the reasoning of the trial court, and the applicable law. For the reasons which follow, we reverse.
In evaluating the denial or grant of a motion in limine, our standard of review is well-settled. When ruling on a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion in limine, we apply an evidentiary abuse of discretion standard of review. Moser, 999 A.2d at 605. “A trial court has broad discretion to determine whether evidence is admissible,” and a trial court's ruling regarding the admission of evidence “will not be disturbed on appeal unless that ruling reflects manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support to be clearly erroneous.” Commonwealth v. Huggins, 68 A.3d 962, 966 (Pa.Super.2013), appeal denied, ––– Pa. ––––, 80 A.3d 775 (2013) ; Commonwealth v. Minich, 4 A.3d 1063 (Pa.Super.2010) (citations and quotations omitted). If the evidentiary question is purely one of law, our review is plenary. Moser, 999 A.2d at 605 n. 4 (citing Schroeder v. Jaquiss, 580 Pa. 381, 861 A.2d 885, 889 (2004) ).
The Commonwealth maintains that Pa.R.Crim.P. 573 does not require that the Commonwealth perform DNA testing at any particular time; thus, it was improper to exclude the DNA results a week before trial, even if the Commonwealth could have received the results sooner.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(B)(1)(e), provides, in relevant part, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Steven Van Smith S. Rich, 789 MDA 2016.
...good-faith certification, and we reject the trial court's contention that this appeal is improper. See Commonwealth v. Belani, 101 A.3d 1156, 1157 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate court is not permitted to inquire into the Commonwealth's good-faith certification); see also Commonwealth v. M......
-
Commonwealth v. Ivy
...the rulings' effect substantially handicaps the prosecution. Thus, the appeal is properly before this Court. Commonwealth v. Belani , 101 A.3d 1156, 1157 n. 1 (Pa.Super.2014).3 Instant Messenger “refers to a type of Internet service that enables users to engage in real-time dialogue ‘by typ......
-
Commonwealth v. Rosser
...this issue for appeal, it is devoid of merit. We review the grant of a motion in limine for abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Belani, 101 A.3d 1156, 1160 (Pa.Super.2014). “A trial court has broad discretion to determine whether evidence is admissible,” and a trial court's ruling regardin......
-
Commonwealth v. Lynn
...good-faith certification; we are not permitted to conduct such an inquiry. [See] Moser, 999 A.2d at 605 n.2 (collecting cases). Belani, 101 A.3d at 1157 n.1. stated above, we agree that we are not allowed to conduct this inquiry and we therefore conclude that the Commonwealth's appeal is pr......