Commonwealth v. Alicia Smith: Pennsylvania Superior Court Partially Reverses Habeas Corpus Ruling on Drug Charges

Com. v. Alicia Smith, 2024 PA Super 122 (June 10, 2024)

In a notable ruling, the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the appeal of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding the dismissal of multiple drug-related charges against Alicia Smith. The case, Commonwealth v. Alicia Smith, involved significant legal questions surrounding the sufficiency of evidence presented by the prosecution during the preliminary hearing, particularly concerning possession with intent to deliver (PWID) and constructive possession of controlled substances. On June 10, 2024, the Superior Court issued a mixed decision that reinstated some of the charges against Smith while affirming the dismissal of others.

This ruling provides critical insight into how courts handle evidentiary sufficiency at the preliminary hearing stage and further clarifies the standards of proof required to establish a prima facie case for drug-related charges. The Court's decision also reaffirms longstanding precedents regarding constructive possession, joint access to contraband, and the burden of proof required for a charge of possession with intent to deliver (PWID).

Background of the Case:

The case arose from a police investigation that led to the execution of a search warrant at a residence located at 704 Monongahela Avenue, Charleroi, Pennsylvania, where Alicia Smith lived with her partner, Keaundre Crews. On November 18, 2022, Detective David Kimball of the Charleroi Regional Police Department assisted with the search of the residence, which was conducted after authorities obtained a warrant based on suspicion of illegal drug activity.

During the initial search of the sole bedroom in the residence, Detective Kimball discovered several items that raised suspicion. In the top drawer of a dresser located in the bedroom, he found a “white, hard substance” wrapped in a paper towel. Based on his training and extensive experience in drug investigations, which included conducting “thousands” of such cases, Detective Kimball identified the substance as likely being cocaine. He also found a pill bottle of hydrocodone prescribed to an individual named “Marcus Alums” on the nightstand next to the bed.

Following this discovery, Detective Kimball applied for and obtained a narcotics search warrant, which permitted a more thorough search for controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. Upon resuming the search, Kimball seized the suspected cocaine and discovered additional items, including a black digital scale, plastic sandwich baggies with white residue, and men’s clothing in the dresser. These items were considered typical paraphernalia associated with drug distribution. Additionally, Kimball recovered the hydrocodone pills from the nightstand, which also contained prescription medication bottles and mail addressed to Alicia Smith.

Subsequent field testing using a NIK kit confirmed that the white substance in the paper towel and the residue in the plastic baggies tested positive for cocaine. Laboratory testing later confirmed that the seized substance consisted of 4.20 grams of cocaine base (commonly known as crack cocaine). Detective Kimball testified that, based on the form of the cocaine and the presence of distribution-related paraphernalia, the evidence was consistent with drug sales.

Despite the evidence gathered during the search, Smith filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on May 10, 2023, requesting that the charges be dismissed. She argued that the Commonwealth failed to present a prima facie case to support the charges, which included two counts of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (PWID) for the cocaine and hydrocodone, two counts of simple possession of controlled substances (cocaine and hydrocodone), and two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia.

The trial court reviewed the case during a hearing on July 7, 2023, relying on the preliminary hearing transcript and legal briefs submitted by both parties. On August 10, 2023, the trial court granted Smith’s petition in part, dismissing all charges except for the simple possession of hydrocodone. The Commonwealth subsequently appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to recognize that it had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case on several of the charges.

Legal Issues on Appeal:

The Commonwealth raised two key issues on appeal:

1. Constructive Possession of Controlled Substances and Drug Paraphernalia: The Commonwealth argued that the trial court erred in finding insufficient evidence to establish that Smith constructively possessed the cocaine and drug paraphernalia found in her residence. The evidence presented at the preliminary hearing included the fact that the drugs and paraphernalia were located in a bedroom that Smith shared with her partner, Crews. Items such as mail addressed to Smith and her prescription medication were found in the same room, allowing for the reasonable inference that she had joint access to the areas where the drugs were found.

2. Possession with Intent to Deliver (PWID): The Commonwealth also contended that it had presented sufficient evidence to show that Smith possessed the cocaine and hydrocodone with the intent to deliver. The prosecution emphasized the quantity of cocaine found (4.20 grams of crack cocaine), the presence of a digital scale, and plastic baggies, all of which are commonly associated with drug distribution rather than personal use.

Superior Court’s Standard of Review:

In addressing the Commonwealth’s appeal, the Superior Court reviewed the trial court’s decision de novo, applying a plenary standard of review. The Court examined whether the Commonwealth had presented sufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing to establish a prima facie case for the charges in question.

The Court reiterated the purpose of a preliminary hearing: to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to hold a defendant for trial. At this stage, the Commonwealth is not required to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, it must present evidence that would warrant a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the defendant has likely committed the crime charged. Inferences drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and the weight or credibility of the evidence is not at issue.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling:

1. Constructive Possession of Cocaine and Paraphernalia: The Superior Court found that the Commonwealth had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of Smith’s constructive possession of the cocaine and paraphernalia found in her shared bedroom. The Court explained that constructive possession is a legal concept that arises when a person does not have physical possession of an item but still has the ability and intent to control it. In this case, the presence of Smith’s mail and personal items in the same bedroom, along with the fact that the cocaine and paraphernalia were found in accessible locations within the room, supported the conclusion that she had joint access and control over the contraband.

   Citing precedents such as Commonwealth v. Macolino and Commonwealth v. Mudrick, the Court emphasized that constructive possession does not require exclusive control and can be shared between multiple individuals. In cases where contraband is found in a shared space, both occupants may be found to have joint constructive possession, provided there is sufficient evidence of their ability to control the items. The Court concluded that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing met this standard and, therefore, reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the cocaine-related charges.

2. Possession with Intent to Deliver (PWID): The Court also addressed the PWID charge related to the cocaine. In Pennsylvania, intent to deliver can be inferred from various factors, including the quantity of the controlled substance, the presence of paraphernalia used for packaging or selling drugs, and expert testimony. In this case, Detective Kimball’s testimony, the quantity of cocaine, and the discovery of the digital scale and plastic baggies supported the inference that the cocaine was intended for distribution rather than personal use.

   The Court acknowledged that while the plastic baggies contained only residue, the totality of the circumstances, including the form of the cocaine and the paraphernalia found in the room, supported a prima facie case of intent to deliver. As a result, the Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the PWID charge related to the cocaine.

   However, the Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the PWID charge related to hydrocodone. The Commonwealth had failed to present sufficient evidence regarding the quantity of hydrocodone found or any other factors suggesting that Smith intended to distribute the pills. The trial court had also noted that the hydrocodone pills were found in a prescription bottle belonging to someone else, but there was no indication that they were being prepared for sale or distribution.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s ruling in Commonwealth v. Alicia Smith is a significant decision that clarifies the evidentiary standards required at the preliminary hearing stage for drug possession and PWID charges. The Court’s partial reversal reinstated the charges related to cocaine, including possession with intent to deliver, while affirming the dismissal of the PWID charge related to hydrocodone. The case was remanded for further proceedings, where the Commonwealth will need to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

This case underscores the importance of considering the totality of the circumstances in constructive possession cases and highlights the role of circumstantial evidence in establishing intent to distribute controlled substances. It also serves as a reminder that, at the preliminary hearing stage, the weight of the evidence is not at issue—only whether sufficient evidence exists to proceed to trial.