HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0001660-2008
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
vs. : CP-21-CR-1660-2008
:
:
RALPH MINIUM :
IN RE: JOINING OPINION PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1925
I concur with the Honorable M. L. Ebert, Jr., to the effect that any and all suppression
issues in this case have been waived. I write to share my perspective concerning the disposition
of the suppression motion filed by the defendant.
A hearing on the defendant’s omnibus pretrial motion was held on March 27, 2009. The
hearing began with a statement from the assistant district attorney to the effect that she was
unclear concerning the issues that had been raised. The following exchange took place between
the court and defense counsel:
THE COURT: It would be nice to know in
advance what I am supposed to be looking for.
What is the issue today?
MR. WELCH: To cut to the chase, I fought and
fought and repeatedly asked for discovery and had
to come to the court and get a motion to compel
discovery, something I have to very rarely do.
When I did -- if the court will let me back up for
just a second, maybe a brief factual scenario.
N.T., p. 2.
There then ensued a discussion wherein defense counsel questioned the exact nature of the
charges against his client. The case involved undercover deliveries followed by the search of
defendant’s home. During the search, Mr. Minium was found sitting at a table with a small
amount of cocaine in front of him and a much larger quantity of cocaine in another part of the
room. Defense counsel complained that he had no notice as to which quantity of cocaine his
client was charged with possessing. In addition, the amount of money disclosed in discovery did
not match the amount of money alleged to have been involved in the undercover purchase. We
then observed that the issues raised by the defendant were not so much discovery issues as
matters having to do with a Bill of Particulars. The assistant district attorney, Ms. Mehrtens-
Carlin, then gave a detailed explanation as to the nature of the Commonwealth’s allegations
against Mr. Minium. In light of that explanation, we then suggested that, rather than put the
Commonwealth to the task of filing a written response to a Bill of Particulars, a transcript of
what had just been said by the assistant district attorney would suffice. Defense counsel agreed
and said, “And if I could have just a moment to look through this, we may not have to do much
more here.” N.T. p. 9. The hearing was then recessed to give counsel a further opportunity to
confer.
The hearing was not reconvened. Counsel made no request that the court rule on any
matters raised in the defendant’s petition. We did not find this surprising inasmuch as the
suppression aspect of the omnibus pretrial motion was clearly without merit. The search warrant
in the matter relied on two controlled purchases of cocaine at the defendant’s residence and was
1
clearly supported by probable cause and the motion to suppress evidence did not, in any event,
raise a probable cause issue. Instead, the motion raised the discrepancy with respect to the
amount of money used in the controlled purchases. This discrepancy was explained by the
attorney for the Commonwealth on the day of our hearing. After the proceeding on March 27,
1
In his Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, defendant contends that it was error for the magisterial
district judge to have issued a night time search warrant. While we are satisfied that this contention is, likewise,
without merit, it was not, in any event, raised in the defendant’s omnibus pretrial motion nor was it an issue
otherwise argued before the trial court.
2009, we were satisfied that the defendant’s request for particulars had been addressed and that
there were no outstanding issues before the court. As Judge Ebert notes, counsel certified that
the matter was ready for trial on May 7, 2009. We are satisfied that there was no unresolved
suppression motion outstanding at that time.
December 17, 2009 _____________________________
Kevin A. Hess, J.
Michelle H. Sibert, Esquire
Sr. Assistant District Attorney
Taylor P. Andrews, Esquire
Chief Public Defender
:rlm