HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-2386-2005
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V. :
:
BRYAN KEESEMAN : CP-21-CR-2386-2005
IN RE: OPINION FILED PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA
RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925
Bayley, J., December 10, 2007:--
September 27, 2007
On , defendant was found guilty on count 1, unlawful
delivery of a schedule II controlled substance, count 2, unlawful delivery of a schedule
II controlled substance, count 3, unlawful delivery of a schedule II controlled substance,
count 4, unlawful delivery of a schedule II controlled substance, count 5, unlawful
delivery of a schedule II controlled substance, count 6, unlawful possession with intent
October 2,
to deliver a controlled substance, and count 7, criminal conspiracy. On
2007
, defendant was sentenced on count 5 to pay the costs of prosecution, undergo
DNA testing, pay a fine of $30,000, and undergo a term of imprisonment in a state
1
correctional institution for not less than five years or more than ten years. On count 4
he was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution and undergo imprisonment for not
less than one year or more than five years to run concurrent with the sentence imposed
2
on count 5. On counts 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7, defendant was sentenced to pay the costs of
October 9, 2007November
prosecution. A post-sentence motion was denied on . On
__________
1
Credit was given for time served between September 15, 2005, to June 6, 2006, and
from January 16, 2007 to the date of sentence. The fine and the five year minimum
sentence were mandatory.
2
The one year minimum sentence was mandatory.
CP-21- CR-2386-2005
1, 2007
, defendant filed an appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. On
December 4, 2007
, he filed a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal.
He avers that “The Court erred when it allowed Defendant’s spouse to testify against
him at trial.” This opinion is filed pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure
1925.
The Judicial Code at 42 Pa.C.S. Section 5914, provides:
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, in a criminal
proceeding, neither husband nor wife shall be competent or permitted to
testify to confidential communications made by one to the other unless
this privilege is waived upon trial.
Commonwealth v. McBurrows
As set forth in , 779 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 2001),
this privilege prevents a husband or wife from testifying against their spouse as to any
confidential communications which were made during the marital relationship without
the consent of the other spouse. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that
“Pennsylvania law does not extend the husband-wife privilege set forth in § 5914 to one
spouse’s observance of the act of another spouse.”
Valerie Keeseman, the wife of defendant, was allowed over objection to testify
3
for the Commonwealth at trial. She had already pled guilty to two drug felonies for
which she was sentenced and served a term of imprisonment. She testified that she
and defendant were, for a little over a year and a half, part of a group of people selling
cocaine. They sold cocaine as a means of financing their own drug habit. They were
3
By testifying against her husband she waived her privilege not to under the Judicial
-2-
CP-21- CR-2386-2005
Code at 42 Pa.C.S. Section 5913.
-3-
CP-21- CR-2386-2005
supplied the cocaine by George Santiago who lived a couple of houses away. No
questions were asked to Valerie Keeseman as to anything said between her and
defendant. She stated that all of her testimony was from personal knowledge. All of
her testimony was directed to her conduct and the observations of the conduct of her
husband with respect to selling and using cocaine. Therefore, there was no error
allowing Valerie Keeseman to testify for the prosecution.
(Date) Edgar B. Bayley, J.
Heather Adams, Esquire
Attorney General’s Office
Allen Welch, Esquire
For Defendant
:sal
-4-