Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1434-2006 COMMONWEAL TH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JASON JACKSON CP-21-CR-1434-2006 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 Bayley, J., February 6, 2007:-- Defendant, Jason Jackson, was charged with three counts of unlawful delivery of a schedule II (cocaine) controlled substance.1 The alleged deliveries were on July 21, July 27 and August 3,2005. On September 12, 2006, a jury found defendant not guilty of the alleged delivery on July 21, 2005, and guilty of the deliveries on July 27 and August 3, 2005. On December 5, 2006, defendant was sentenced on the first unlawful delivery to pay the costs of prosecution, a fine of $200, and undergo imprisonment in a state correctional institution for not less than two years or more than five years, to date from May 18, 2006.2 On the second unlawful delivery, he was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution and undergo imprisonment in a state correctional institution for not less than two years or more than five years to date from May 18, 2006, and to run concurrent with the first sentence.3 Defendant filed a direct appeal from the judgment of sentences to the Superior 1 35 P.S. S 780-113(a)(30). 2 The two year minimum was a mandatory minimum. 3 The two year minimum was a mandatory minimum. CP-21-CR-1434-2006 Court of Pennsylvania. In a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, he avers: To support a conviction for the unlawful delivery or manufacture or possession with intent to deliver a schedule II controlled substance, the Commonwealth must present sufficient evidence to identify the defendant, that a drug transaction actually occurred and the fact- finder may not simply rely upon the fact that the Defendant did not offer a defense or had charges brought against him. (Emphasis added.) The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner, whether the jury reasonably could have concluded that all elements of the crime were established beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Chambers, 528 Pa. 558 (1991). Part of the evidence produced by the Commonwealth was as follows. Detective Dawn Kell was assigned to the Cumberland County Drug Task Force. She worked undercover with a confidential informant who was not identified at trial. Kell testified that on July 27, 2005, she got into a car driven by the CI. They arrived at the rear of apartments at East Pomfret Street and Spring Garden Street in Carlisle, where the CI made a cell phone call. They then parked in an area where Kell, who was in the backseat, saw a man, who was alone, walking toward the car. She made an in- court identification that defendant Jason Jackson was that man. Jackson got into the front passenger seat and told the CI to move the car, which the CI did. Kell then saw the CI put money on the center console, and Jackson put, what turned out to be crack -2- CP-21-CR-1434-2006 cocaine, into the CI's hand.4 Jackson took the money, got out of the vehicle, and went toward the apartments. On August 3,2005, Detective Kell was in the same car driven by the same CI. They were in Carlisle on Pomfret Street facing the same housing development. A man, who was alone, walked to the driver's side of the car where Kell saw him exchange what turned out to be crack cocaine for money from the CI.5 She saw that the man was the same person she had seen deliver crack cocaine to the CI inside the car on July 27. She identified him in court as defendant Jason Jackson. After the delivery, Jackson walked toward the apartments. The credibility of Detective Kell as to her identification of defendant as the person who made the deliveries of crack cocaine to the CI was for the jury. This evidence alone, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to identify defendant, Jason Jackson, as the person who delivered crack cocaine to the Cion July 27,2005 and August 3, 2005.6 (Date) Edgar B. Bayley, J. Michelle H. Sibert, Esquire For the Commonwealth 4 It was stipulated that the substance was .5 grams of crack cocaine. 5 It was stipulated that the substance was .5 grams of crack cocaine. 6 It makes it unnecessary to review other corroborative evidence in the record of the -3- CP-21-CR-1434-2006 Gregory B. Abeln, Esquire F or Defendant :sal identity of defendant committing the delivery. -4-