Commonwealth v. Arnold

284 A.3d 1262

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.David Kenneth ARNOLD, Appellant

No. 38 WDA 2022

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted July 25, 2022

Filed: October 20, 2022

Joseph L. Smith, Public Defender, Butler, for appellant.

Richard A. Goldinger, Assistant District Attorney, Butler, for appellee.

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and KING, J.

OPINION BY BENDER, P.J.E.:

Appellant, David Kenneth Arnold, appeals from the judgment of sentence of an aggregate term of 2-4 years’ incarceration, imposed after a jury found him guilty under two provisions of the contraband statute involving separate acts.¹ Appellant challenges the constitutionality of the Contraband Offense, alleging that its ostensible lack of a mens rea element violates his due process rights. Appellant also challenges the weight and sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Possession Offense. After careful review, we vacate Appellant's judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial with respect to the Contraband Offense. Otherwise, we affirm with respect to Appellant's conviction for the Possession Offense.

Unfortunately, the trial court did not provide a summary of the facts adduced at Appellant's September 22, 2021 jury trial in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. The following factual summary was provided by Appellant in his Statement of Case:²

On January 22, 2020, Appellant was detained by Butler County Adult Probation for a violation and was subsequently committed to the Butler County Prison. Appellant was taken into the Butler County Prison and placed into a holding cell in the main processing/intake area. While in processing[,] Appellant was searched by the corrections officers. Appellant is a severe hemophiliac and is an [ ]above-the-knee[ ] amputee who has a prosthetic leg. Appellant's prost[he]tic leg has a foot which he outfits with a sock and shoe. Appellant has no feeling below the knee. At the time of his detention, Appellant possessed a valid prescription for Suboxone^[3] and used that controlled substance as part of his addiction therapy.^[4]

While in the processing department of the Butler County Prison, Appellant was subject to search. Correction's Officer Summerville searched Appellant. Appellant undressed and removed his prosthetic leg willingly and voluntarily. Officer Summerville removed the shoe and sock and located a piece of folded paper which contained a single white pill. The pill was confiscated and later identified as a schedule III-controlled substance.^[5] Appellant denied specific knowledge of the single pill[’]s presence and indicated he [ ]forgot[ ] it was there. He testified at trial to the sequence of events that led him to forget such item, which included the overdose death of his son's mother, the loss of his son to [Children and Youth Services], as well as his prescription medications being stolen on prior occasions.^[6] Appellant could not feel the pill in his sock/shoe due to the amputation and completely forgot about its presence. The pill was confiscated by the Corrections Officer and ultimately became the subject of the ... Contraband [Offense].

Appellant was then committed to the Butler County Prison from the processing department, given his prosthetic leg back, and issued a prison wheelchair. Appellant was strip searched on[ ] at least[ ] two occasions[,] with no other items of contraband being located. Appellant was detained at the Butler County Prison awaiting his probation violation hearing. On or about January 27, 2020, corrections officers searched Appellant's prison cell at the Butler County Prison. While Appellant was taking a shower, corrections officers noticed food items within his cell. Keeping food past mealtime is considered a misconduct per Butler County Prison rules. So, the corrections officers conducted a complete cell search. Nothing was found inside Appellant's cell. However, Appellant's prison[-]issued wheelchair was outside of his assigned cell when Correction Officer McClelland noticed a [ ]small hole[ ] in the wheelchair. Officer McClelland and Officer Wingrove searched the wheelchair. In fact, they completely disassembled the wheelchair down to its component parts and cut apart the seat. The wheelchair was destroyed in the process. Upon disassembly, the officers found three (3) pieces of waxy tape paper, orange in color, and a fingertip portion of a rubber glove which contained [ ]a brown substance[ ] inside of it. Officers confronted Appellant[,] who completely denied having contraband or hiding anything within the wheelchair. The items found within the wheelchair were confiscated and Appellant was ultimately charged with [the Possession Offense].^[7]

Appellant's Brief at 14-17.

The parties agree to the following recitation of the procedural history of this case:

On September 22, 2021, following trial, a jury convicted [Appellant] ... of [the Contraband Offense and the Possession Offense]. The Honorable Timothy F. McCune sentenced Appellant on October 21, 2021, to an aggregate term of not less than twenty-four (24) months and not more than forty-eight (48) months in state prison. The sentence imposed is mandatory as provided for [by Section 5123(a.1), which states] that "[a]ny person convicted of subsection (a) shall be sentenced to a minimum sentence of at least two years of total confinement, notwithstanding any other provision of this title or any other statute to the contrary." Appellant was also sentenced on [the Possession Offense] to a period of total confinement of twelve (12) to twenty-four (24) months to be served concurrently with the Contraband [O]ffense. There was no probation imposed on either count.

On October 27, 2021, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion. Appellant sought [j]udgment of [a]cquittal on both charges[,] raising and preserving the various constitutional challenges contained herein.

Appellant also sought a [n]ew [t]rial preserving the various arguments regarding insufficient evidence and weight given to support Appellant's convictions on both charges. Following oral arguments, the trial court denied Appellant's post-sentence motion on December 30, 2021.

[A n]otice of appeal was filed on January 6, 2022.^[8]

Appellant's Brief at 13-14 (citation omitted). Appellant filed a timely, court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement on January 27, 2022. The trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion on March 3, 2022.

Appellant now presents the following questions for our review:

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion, or erred as a matter of law, when it denied Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the Contraband [Offense] where Appellant ar[gu]ed [the] statute and associated jury instructions [are] unconstitutional and violative of his fund[a]mental right to due process as secured by the constitutions of the United States and this Commonwealth?

II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion, or erred as a matter of law, when it denied Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial on the ... Possession [Offense] where Appellant uncontrovertibly testified that he did not knowingly or actually possess such items in a prison issued wheelchair?

III. Whether the Commonwealth presented insuffic[i]ent evidence to sustain the convictions against Appellant?

Appellant's Brief at 12 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

I.

In his first claim, Appellant asserts that the Contraband Offense, and the related instruction defining the offense as read to the jury, are "violative of his fundamental right to procedural and substantive due process rights as secured by" both the Pennsylvania and federal constitutions.⁹ Id. at 22. He argues that the Contraband Offense "and its associated jury instruction is constitutionally infirm and illegal because it is a strict liability offense which lacks a specific mens rea requirement." Id. Therefore, Appellant urges this Court to "declare the Contraband [Offense] and its associated instruction as violative of substantive and procedural due process." Id. at 23. The trial court determined that the explicit, plain language of the Contraband Offense demonstrated that the General Assembly intended it to be a strict-liability crime, and reads prior cases addressing the statute, discussed infra , as having upheld its constitutionality despite the ostensible absence of a scienter element. See TCO at 2-3.

For the reasons that follow, and contrary to the trial court's analysis, we hold that the Contraband Offense, Section 5123(a), contains a default mens rea of recklessness, provided by 18 Pa.C.S. § 302(c). For that reason, the Contraband Offense does not offend due process principles that disfavor strict liability offenses. Consequently, Appellant is not entitled to any form of relief premised upon the alleged unconstitutionality of the statute. However, the trial court's refusal to issue any mens rea instruction to the jury was premised on its misreading of the Contraband Offense as a strict liability crime that did not require one. Due to that error, Appellant is entitled to a new trial on the Contraband Offense.

"As the constitutionality of a statute is a pure question of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary." Commonwealth v. Omar , 602 Pa. 595, 981 A.2d 179, 185 (2009). We are further mindful of the following standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a statute:

When interpreting a statute, the court must ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature and give full effect to each provision of the statute if at all possible. 1 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 1921(a); Commonwealth v. Brown , ... 423 Pa.Super. 264, 620 A.2d 1213, 1214 ([Pa. Super.] 1993) ; Commonwealth v. Edwards , ... 384 Pa.Super. 454[, 460], 559 A.2d 63, 66 ([Pa. Super.] 1989).... In construing a statute to determine its meaning, courts must first determine whether the issue may be resolved by reference to the express language of the statute, which is to be read according to the plain meaning of the words. 1 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 1903(a). See

...