Commonwealth v. Gray

211 A.3d 1253

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Wayne Allen GRAY Jr., Appellant

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

v.Nicole Helena Baker, Appellant

No. 1063 MDA 2018

No. 1272 MDA 2018

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted March 6, 2019

Filed May 31, 2019

Stephen D. Kulla, Waynesboro, for Gray, appellant.

Brian W. Mains, Carlisle, for Baker, appellant.

Matthew D. Fogal, District Attorney, Chambersburg, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: OTT, J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.^*

OPINION BY NICHOLS, J.:

Appellants Wayne Allen Gray Jr. (Appellant Gray) and Nicole Helena Baker (Appellant Baker) appeal¹ from the judgments of sentence entered following their convictions at a joint jury trial.² Appellants assert that the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence obtained when the police unlawfully entered their residence to search for another individual. We agree and vacate Appellants' judgments of sentence and remand for further proceedings.

In this matter, Appellants both were charged with one count each of hindering apprehension, obstructing administration of law, and resisting arrest after law enforcement conducted a warrantless search of their home on December 17, 2016. Appellants filed motions to suppress the evidence obtained through the search, arguing that the warrantless entry of their home was illegal. The trial court held a hearing on July 21, 2017, at which Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Lucas Hall, Pennsylvania State Police Corporal David Julock, and Chambersburg Police Department Corporal Shane Good testified.

Trooper Hall testified that on December 16, 2016, he was on duty on the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. Trooper Hall received a call for a domestic incident that was no longer in progress at a home in Fannett Township. N.T. Suppression Hr'g, 7/21/17, at 7.

Trooper Hall indicated that it took approximately forty-five minutes to reach the home where the incident took place. Id. at 9.

When Trooper Hall arrived at the home, he spoke with Nicole Harry. Id. at 7. She reported that she was in a verbal argument with her boyfriend, Isaiah Baker (Mr. Baker),³ which she believed would turn physical. Id. at 9. She left the residence to call 911 and then he fled the residence. Id. Ms. Harry indicated to Trooper Hall that Mr. Baker had kicked the bathroom door where she had been hiding. Id. at 14. Trooper Hall observed the bathroom door to be broken with a footmark on the door. Id. at 15. Ms. Harry related that Mr. Baker was violent to her in the past, she was afraid the altercation would become physical, and she was scared for her life. Id. at 9, 16. Trooper Hall did not observe any physical injury to Ms. Harry, and Ms. Harry did not report suffering physical injury. Id. at 15.

Trooper Hall testified, "[Ms. Harry] had stated that [when Mr. Baker left her home,] he had took a gun^{[4 ]} and an Xbox, along with the ammunition from the said gun.... The gun was believed to be a high point 380." Id. at 9. Additionally, Trooper Hall received information that Mr. Baker was prohibited from possessing a firearm due to a prior felony conviction. Id. at 16-17. After spending approximately one hour at Ms. Harry's residence searching for the firearm without finding it, Trooper Hall notified Corporal Julock "about the things that were missing." Id. at 11. Ms. Harry did not testify at the suppression hearing.

Corporal Julock testified that he was the State Police shift supervisor for the overnight shift. Id. at 17-18. Corporal Julock received a call from Trooper Hall about "the theft of a handgun during a domestic violence incident up in Path Valley." Id. at 18. According to the corporal, Trooper Hall advised him of "the theft of a handgun, who took the handgun [i.e. , Mr. Baker], and where he possibly could be going." Id. at 18. Corporal Julock testified that he received information that Mr. Baker was going to a residence in Chambersburg. Id.

According to Corporal Julock, he arrived at the residence, where he met Corporal Good "and a couple other [borough] police officers." Id. Corporal Julock approached Appellants' residence without a search warrant or an arrest warrant. Id. at 28, 31. Corporal Julock testified that "he went to the front door, and there was an individual [who] was at the door telling us that we needed a search warrant to go into the house." Id. at 19. Corporal Julock then went to the back of the house, where he saw Corporal Good speaking with Appellant Baker. Id. Corporal Julock advised Appellant Baker that there was a "theft of the handgun and how we don't need a search warrant because we know [Mr. Baker] is in the house at the time. And being probab[le] cause of theft and being a handgun, being a felon, we don't need a search warrant to go in and talk to him." Id. Corporal Julock stated that Appellant Baker was irate and upset, but that he was "trying to reason with her and the other people in the house at the time." Id.

Corporal Julock then testified that "somebody ... kept coming to the front door,"⁵ but that he could not remember who it was. Id. at 20. According to the corporal, "[a]fter that we did go into the house." Id. The corporal could not recall whether a State Trooper or a Chambersburg police officer went into the house first. Id. Once the corporal entered the residence, he saw two individuals were blocking the stairway to the second floor. Id. Ultimately, state troopers and local police officers went to the upstairs of Appellants' residence and apprehended Mr. Baker. Id. at 21.

On cross-examination at the suppression hearing, Corporal Julock conceded that there was no opportunity for Mr. Baker to harm Ms. Harry at the time he entered Appellants' residence. Id. at 22. Corporal Julock asserted that he specifically asked Chambersburg police officers if surveillance was in place "in the front and rear of the residence where the individual could leave the residence" and was told "yes." Id. at 25. Further, when defense counsel asked whether he could have "secured the scene, and prevented Mr. Baker from leaving, and obtained a warrant[,]" Corporal Julock responded, "We could have applied for a warrant, yes." Id. at 23.

Corporal Good testified that he was the patrol supervisor of Squad 1 of the Chambersburg Police Department. Id. at 26. He received a request from the State Police asking his officers to respond to Appellants' residence in Chambersburg and to be on the lookout for Mr. Baker. Id. at 27. Corporal Good, who was the first officer to arrive at Appellants' residence, believed that he arrived sometime after midnight. Id. at 31.

When Corporal Good arrived at the residence, he saw Mr. Baker "walking away from" a red vehicle. Id. The corporal then radioed his other officers to respond to the residence. According to Corporal Good, "[T]hey set up a perimeter, and we kept an eye on the house until State Police arrived." Id. at 28.

According to Corporal Good, he met Corporal Julock when Corporal Julock first arrived at the scene. Id. at 28. Corporal Good told Corporal Julock that he saw Mr. Baker, and they proceeded to the front door. Id. at 28. Appellant Baker answered the door, and "[t]here was some conflict going on between the troopers and [Appellant] Baker." Id. According to Corporal Good, "[t]ensions were pretty high." Id.

At some point in time, Appellant Baker went to the back of the house, and Corporal Good went to speak with her. Corporal Good stated that he knew Appellant Baker for a long time, and he wanted to "calm things down." Id. Corporal Good testified:

We were on the back porch. I asked [Appellant] Baker if she would go and get [Mr. Baker], and allow me to talk to him because I have known [Mr. Baker] a long time as well. She went to do that. I was waiting on the back porch and I heard a loud commotion, sounded like a fight going on in the house.

* * *

I entered the house to see what was going on, and I saw troopers fighting with [Appellant] Baker and [Appellant] Gray.

Id. at 29.

The trial court issued an order denying the suppression motions on October 6, 2017. In an accompanying opinion, the trial court reasoned that

while some factors weigh in favor of [Appellants], a balancing of the factors reveals a leaning toward finding the existence of exigent circumstances.... "[T]he time of the entry" ... was at night, which leans in favor of [Appellants]. As to ... "whether the officer was in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon", while the officers were following up on a reported stolen weapon, they were not in hot pursuit of Mr. Baker. As to ... "whether there is a likelihood that evidence may be destroyed", the [c]ourt agrees that the likelihood of Mr. Baker destroying the firearm he had reportedly stolen was not high.

However, the following factors weigh in favor of finding the existence of exigent circumstances. As to ... the "gravity of the offense", Mr. Baker was suspected of engaging in a domestic dispute and thereafter stealing a firearm, which, in tandem with the fact that he was statutorily prohibited from possessing a firearm, constitutes a relatively serious offense. As to ... "whether there is a reasonable belief that the suspect is armed", given Ms. Harry's report of Mr. Baker stealing her firearm and ammunition, the police had a reasonable belief that Mr. Baker was armed. As to ... "whether there is a clear showing of probable cause" and "whether there is a strong showing that the suspect is within the premises to be searched", Ms. Harry's report of the stolen firearm and ammunition considered in tandem with [the] confirmation that Mr. Baker was present in the residence results in this [c]ourt's conclusion that there was a clear showing of both probable cause and that Mr. Baker was present at the residence they sought to search. As to ... "whether there is a likelihood that the suspect will escape", Ms. Harry had recently reported that Mr. Baker fled her residence following a domestic dispute, which supports the possibility that Mr. Baker may have followed suit in fleeing the residence if the police

...