Com. v. Gonzalez, F.

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant :

:

v. :

:

FRANKLIN SAEL GONZALEZ :

:

Appellee : No. 587 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered April 18, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0001249-2022

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant :

:

v. :

:

TAZWELL BERRIOS :

:

Appellee : No. 588 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered April 18, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0001319-2022

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant :

:

v. :

:

RICARDO BATISTA :

:

Appellee : No. 589 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered April 18, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0001320-2022

BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: JANUARY 3, 2024

Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals1 from the orders

entered in the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the

motions in limine of Appellees Franklin Sael Gonzalez, Tazwell Berrios, and

Ricardo Batista.2 We affirm.

The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of these

appeals as follows:

On October 15, 2022, Troopers with the Pennsylvania State

Police encountered a black SUV vehicle on State Route 72

in North Lebanon Township. The vehicle displayed an

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The Commonwealth appealed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) and certified that

the orders on appeal substantially handicapped the prosecution. The

Commonwealth’s certification alone is sufficient to establish our jurisdiction

over the interlocutory orders. See Commonwealth v. Moser, 999 A.2d 602,

605 (Pa.Super. 2010), appeal denied, 610 Pa. 595, 20 A.3d 485 (2011)

(noting Superior Court may not inquire into grounds for Commonwealth’s good

faith certification). Accordingly, these appeals are properly before us for

review. See Commonwealth v. Cosnek, 575 Pa. 411, 421, 836 A.2d 871,

877 (2003) (stating Rule 311(d) applies to pretrial ruling that results in

suppression, preclusion, or exclusion of Commonwealth’s evidence).

2 The cases involving the three defendants in these appeals were consolidated

before the trial court and the Commonwealth filed the instant appeals after

the trial court denied the motions in limine applicable to all three cases. The

Commonwealth filed virtually identical briefs and raises identical issues for

each of these appeals. As such, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 513, we consolidate

these appeals sua sponte, and address them in one disposition.

-2-

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

“unknown temporary registration[.”] Police saw the vehicle

cross the white fog line three (3) times. As a result, the

Troopers activated the emergency lights and siren on their

police vehicle.

Once police activated lights and siren, the vehicle sped up

until it attained a speed of 114 miles per hour. “Multiple

police intervention measures” were attempted. During the

chase, a bag was thrown from the driver’s side of the

vehicle.

The driver of the vehicle was later identified as [Appellee

Gonzalez]. The front seat passenger was identified as

[Appellee Batista]. A rear seat passenger was identified as

[Appellee Berrios]. When police [asked Appellee] Batista for

his name, [Appellee] Batista misidentified himself as “Luis

Ortiz.”

The SUV vehicle was towed back to the Pennsylvania State

Police Barracks in Jonestown. Contraband in plain view was

seized. A search warrant was obtained. The search warrant

revealed the existence of marijuana and a tin foil containing

approximately 50 grams of Fentanyl. In addition, eight (8)

clear plastic vials of Fentanyl were also located.

The bag that was seen to have been thrown from the vehicle

was obtained by police. Over two hundred (200) bags of

Fentanyl and two hundred (200) vials of Fentanyl were

located within the bag.

* * *

… Criminal complaints were filed against [Appellees Batista,

Barrios, and Gonzalez]. Those complaints charged each

[Appellee] with violations of Pennsylvania’s Controlled

Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, including felony

counts for possession with intent to deliver fentanyl and

conspiracy. Additional charges were filed against [Appellee]

Gonzalez related to his operation of the SUV vehicle and

against [Appellee] Batista related to his providing a false

name.

[Appellees] were arraigned in November of 2022. On

-3-

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

December 22, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a motion for

consolidation. That motion was granted by [the trial court]

on January 18, 2023.

[Appellees] were initially scheduled for trial during February

of 2023. On January 27, 2023, [Appellee] Gonzalez sought

and received a continuance until the April term of court. No

record of any defense continuance request is contained in

[Appellee] Batista’s file. However, [Appellee] Batista signed

a certificate of trial readiness on February 8, 2023[,]

indicating his readiness to proceed to trial during March. As

it relates to [Appellee] Batista’s file, the Commonwealth

filed a motion for continuance seeking to move [Appellee]

Batista’s trial until April. The court granted that request. A

similar request for continuance was submitted by the

Commonwealth relating to [Appellee] Berrios on March 14,

2023. [Appellee Berrios’s] trial was also continued until the

April term of [c]ourt.

As of the April call of the criminal trial list that occurred on

April 4, 2023, all three cases appeared to be ready to

proceed to trial. At this point, an unusual confluence of

events occurred that culminated in the order [the trial court]

entered following jury selection on April 17, 2023. [The]

events that served as a backdrop for [the] court order of

April 1[8], 2023 [are as follows:]

1. The status of Attorney Brian Deiderick

Attorney Brian Deiderick represented [Appellee] Berrios

from the inception of the charges until the date on which the

jury trial was cancelled. Attorney Deiderick had served as

the Chief Lebanon County Public Defender for several

decades. He was perhaps the most experienced criminal

defense attorney in all of Lebanon County.

At some point in time during late March of 2023, Attorney

Deiderick announced that he would be leaving the Public

Defender’s Office in order to join the Lebanon County

District Attorney’s Office. In order to “wrap up” pending

cases, Attorney Deiderick announced that he would delay

his move until after the April 2023 term of court. [Attorney]

Deiderick represented to the court that he would advise all

-4-

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

of his pending clients about the impending move and he

would not undertake representation of any defendant who

complained. We thus accept that [Appellee] Berrios

voluntarily chose to have Attorney Deiderick represent him

at trial, presumably because he wanted to take advantage

of Attorney Deiderick’s vast wealth of experience.

The impending move of Attorney Deiderick to the District

Attorney’s Office caused [the trial] court to immediately

realize that any postponement of this trial would necessarily

require the appointment of a new attorney to represent

[Appellee] Berrios. This dynamic would have two non-trivial

implications. First, it would require months for a new

attorney to become familiarized with the above file in order

to try it effectively. The two other defendants, [Appellees]

Gonzalez and Batista, would therefore be prevented from

going to trial during these months, and both [Appellees]

were incarcerated pending trial. Second, a postponement

of trial would prevent [Appellee] Berrios from being

represented by Attorney Deiderick, who was clearly his

attorney of choice. Because of the two dynamics outlined

above, [the trial] court was beyond reluctant to postpone

the above-referenced cases.

2. Both sides had already received continuances

The above-referenced cases were originally scheduled for

trial during the February term of court. [Appellee] Gonzalez

requested a continuance until the April term of court and his

request was granted. Later, the Commonwealth requested

a continuance of both other cases until April. Those

requests were also granted. Following the Commonwealth’s

request for a continuance, everyone agreed that the above-

referenced cases would be tried during the April 2023 term

of court. From at least the beginning of March, everyone

knew that these cases were scheduled to be tried during the

April term of court that commenced on April 17, 2023.

3. Everyone had agreed that the cases were trial-ready

Lebanon County maintains a call of the list procedure. An

initial call of the list is typically conducted two (2) weeks to

twenty (20) days prior to jury selection. The second call of

-5-

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

the list occurs during the week before jury selection. Either

side can request a postponement at either call of the list.

To be sure, most continuances during the initial call are

proffered by the defense, and most continuances during the

second call are proffered by the Commonwealth. Still,

anyone could have raised an issue impacting the timing of

trial at either call of the list proceeding.

In these cases, everyone agreed at the initial call of the list

that the above-referenced cases should remain on the April

2023 trial list. At the second call that occurred less than

one (1) week prior to trial, everyone again agreed that the

above-referenced cases should remain on the trial list.

4. [Appellees] filed Motions that should have been filed

earlier

One business day before jury selection, [Appellees] Berrios

and Batista filed motions that were styled as motions in

limine.2 The motions complained that the Commonwealth

did not turn over an “expert report” and information from

cellular phones that were seized by police at the time of the

[Appellees’] arrest. According to the defense motions, the

[expert report was disclosed on April 3, 2023, and the data

recovered from Appellees’ cell phones was uploaded to a

shared digital folder on April 6, 2023]. Despite having this

“new” information in their possession [by] April [6], 2023,

[Appellees] waited until one (1) day before trial to ask [the

trial] court to preclude all of the information contained in

the Commonwealth’s untimely discovery.

2 [Appellee] Gonzalez later joined these motions.

[The trial court] met with all counsel immediately prior to

the selection of a jury. [The trial court] expressed [its]

displeasure to both sides. [It] chastised the Commonwealth

for not producing an expert report until April and [it]

chastised the defense attorneys for failing to file a motion

prior to the afternoon of the business day preceding trial.

[The court] told everybody that [it] would proceed to select

a jury because a panel was sitting and waiting down the

hallway. [The court] also advised everyone that [it] would

not swear the jury in immediately so that jeopardy would

-6-

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

not attach. [The trial court] then scheduled a hearing/oral

argument during the afternoon following selection of all

juries.

5. The Commonwealth’s untimely discovery

At the proceeding that occurred during the afternoon of jury

selection, the Commonwealth acknowledged that it did not

turn over its expert report until April [3], 2023. The

Commonwealth also acknowledged that it did not turn over

any downloads obtained by the Pennsylvania State Police

from [Appellees’] cellular telephones until April [6], 2023.

[The trial court] then learned that what was disclosed on

April [6], 2023 was a tranche of information downloaded

from [Appellees’] phones that was measured in gigabytes.

At least initially, the Commonwealth did not identify for the

defense what portions of this tranche would be used at trial.

It was not until roughly ten (10) days later that the

Commonwealth “as a courtesy” identified which portions of

the cellular phone downloads would be relevant during the

Commonwealth’s case-in-chief.3

3 At the hearing on afternoon of April 17, 2023, the

Commonwealth read one (1) passage from the cellular

telephone of [Appellee] Batista that specifically

referenced drugs. Another download from [Appellee]

Gonzalez referenced a location where he was at a

certain point in time. Apparently, this location is

relevant to the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief.

At the proceeding on April 17, 2023, the prosecutor

vociferously proclaimed that she turned over everything she

received from the State Police immediately after it was

received. She also indicated that she disclosed the portions

of the cellular download that she wanted to use “as a

courtesy,” and she did so as soon as she “discerned what it

was that was relevant.” So that [the trial] court is perfectly

clear, [it does] not accuse the Lebanon County District

Attorney’s Office of intentionally withholding information

that it had in its possession. [The court] believed the

prosecutor when she said that she turned over what she had

when she obtained it. That said, when [the court] asked

why disclosure of the information was so delayed, the

-7-

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

prosecutor responded that the State Police were “too busy”

to conduct the analysis of the cell phones.

During the proceeding that occurred on Monday, April 17,

2023, [the court] also learned that the Commonwealth had

not—even up to that point in time—presented the defense

with a copy of the search warrant used by the State Police

to obtain possession and access to information on

[Appellees’ Batista’s and Gonzalez’s] cellular telephones.

[The trial court] therefore directed that the Commonwealth

produce those search warrants immediately for inspection

by the defense. [It] also included a process by which the

defense could proffer suppression arguments before the

information could be used in rebuttal [in accordance with

the court’s order described below].

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 5/12/23, at 2-9) (unnecessary capitalization and

emphasis omitted).

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court entered an order (docketed

the next day, on April 18, 2023) granting in part and denying in part Appellees’

motion to preclude the expert testimony of Trooper Ryan Goodling.

Specifically, the court explained that Trooper Goodling would not be permitted

to testify as an expert witness that the drugs were possessed with the intent

to distribute as opposed to possessed for mere personal use. Nevertheless,

the court permitted Trooper Goodling to testify about the street value of the

drugs.

In addition, the trial court granted Appellees’ motion in limine to exclude

certain text messages on Appellee Batista’s cell phone from the

Commonwealth’s case-in-chief. However, the court explained that the

Commonwealth could utilize the text messages during rebuttal. The trial court

-8-

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

directed the Commonwealth to provide Appellees a copy of the search warrant

used to obtain access to the phone before the start of trial the next day. The

court stated that if any Appellee wished to file a suppression motion based on

the search warrant, he could do so by the end of that day, and the court would

conduct a hearing on the suppression motion prior to permitting the text

messages to be used as rebuttal evidence. Similarly, the court granted

Appellees’ motion in limine to exclude certain text messages on Appellee

Gonzalez’s cell phone from the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief. The court set

up a similar procedure for submission of the search warrant to the defense if

the Commonwealth intended to use any information from the cell phone as

part of its rebuttal evidence. The following day, the Commonwealth filed

timely separate notices of appeal from the orders pertaining to each

defendant. Pursuant to the trial court’s order, the Commonwealth filed a

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal on May 8, 2023.

The Commonwealth raises the following issues for our review:

A. Whether the trial court erred in granting [Appellees’]

motion in limine to preclude the expert opinion of Trooper

Ryan Goodling?

B. Whether the trial court erred in granting [Appellees’]

motion in limine to preclude the presentation of cell phone

evidence?

(Commonwealth’s Brief at 5).

Our standard of review of the trial court’s evidentiary decisions is well

settled: “When ruling on a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion in

-9-

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

limine, we apply an evidentiary abuse of discretion standard of review.”

Commonwealth v. Belani, 101 A.3d 1156, 1160 (Pa.Super. 2014). “An

abuse of discretion may not be found merely because an appellate court might

have reached a different conclusion.” Commonwealth v. Cook, 231 A.3d

913, 919 (Pa.Super. 2020) (citation omitted). Rather, an abuse of discretion

only occurs where the trial court has committed an error of law, or “when the

judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or is the result of partiality,

prejudice, bias or ill-will.” Id. (citation omitted). Further, to the extent we

are required to review the trial court’s conclusions of law, “our standard of

review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v.

Wilmer, 648 Pa. 577, 583, 194 A.3d 564, 567 (2018).

In its first issue, the Commonwealth argues that the trial court erred in

granting Appellees’ motion in limine to preclude, in part, the expert opinion of

Trooper Goodling. The Commonwealth insists that it did not commit a

discovery violation under Pa.R.Crim.P. 573 to warrant exclusion of the

proffered expert opinion. Specifically, the Commonwealth argues that it was

not required to obtain an expert report concerning whether the facts

concerning possession of the drugs were consistent with an intent to deliver

as opposed to an intent to possess for personal use. The Commonwealth

suggests that under Rule 573, the need for a report would be assessed on a

case by case basis and generally “a prepared report ordinarily would not be

necessary when the expert is known to the parties and testifies about the

- 10 -

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

same subject on a regular basis.” (Commonwealth’s Brief at 21-22) (quoting

Pa.R.Crim.P. 573, Comment). The Commonwealth asserts that it disclosed

the expert report as soon as it received it, which was two weeks before trial.

The Commonwealth contends this was far enough in advance of trial that there

was no prejudice to Appellees. The Commonwealth disputes Appellees’

argument that they were prejudiced by not having the opportunity to retain

their own expert regarding whether possession was with intent to deliver or

for personal use. The Commonwealth claims Appellees could have retained

their own expert regardless of whether the Commonwealth offered an expert

report.

The Commonwealth further argues that the trial court abused its

discretion when it precluded Trooper Goodling’s expert report based on the

purported discovery violation rather than granting a continuance. The

Commonwealth insists that the trial court erred when it considered the fact

that Appellee Berrios’s counsel would not be available if a continuance were

granted. The Commonwealth concludes the court’s ruling precluding the

Commonwealth’s proffered expert testimony was erroneous, and this Court

must grant relief. We disagree.

“[D]ecisions involving discovery in criminal cases lie within the

discretion of the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Alston, 233 A.3d 795, 804

(Pa.Super. 2020) (quoting Commonwealth v. Smith, 955 A.2d 391, 394

(Pa.Super. 2008)). Our Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that “[i]t

- 11 -

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

is well established in this Commonwealth that the purpose of the discovery

rules is to permit the parties in a criminal matter to be prepared for trial. Trial

by ambush is contrary to the spirit and letter of those rules and cannot be

condoned.” Commonwealth v. Shelton, 536 Pa. 559, 564-65, 640 A.2d

892, 895 (1994) (citation omitted). “[A defendant’s] due process rights are

violated and his right to a fair trial infringed whenever he is not given all of

the discoverable material evidence in advance of trial[.]” Commonwealth v.

Hanford, 937 A.2d 1094, 1101 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 598 Pa. 763,

956 A.2d 432 (2008).

Although the trial court has the discretion to impose the remedy that

best fits the circumstances for a discovery violation, “we must remember its

discretion is not unfettered. In most cases, ordering a continuance will be an

adequate remedy.” Smith, supra at 395 (citations omitted). “A continuance

is appropriate where the undisclosed statement or other evidence is

admissible and the defendant’s only prejudice is surprise.” Id. “As to the

relief granted, our cases have held that Rule 573(E) requires a proportionality

requirement.” Id. (reasoning that preclusion of testimony could be

appropriate sanction for discovery violation, as long as such preclusion did not

result in ultimate dismissal of the case).

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 573 governs discovery

obligations in criminal cases, and states, inter alia:

Rule 573. Pretrial Discovery and Inspection

- 12 -

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

(A) Informal. Before any disclosure or discovery can be

sought under these rules by either party, counsel for the

parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve all questions

of discovery, and to provide information required or

requested under these rules as to which there is no dispute.

When there are items requested by one party which the

other party has refused to disclose, the demanding party

may make appropriate motion. Such motion shall be made

within 14 days after arraignment, unless the time for filing

is extended by the court. In such motion the party must set

forth the fact that a good faith effort to discuss the

requested material has taken place and proved

unsuccessful. Nothing in this provision shall delay the

disclosure of any items agreed upon by the parties pending

resolution of any motion for discovery.

(B) Disclosure by the Commonwealth.

(1) Mandatory. In all court cases, on request by the

defendant, and subject to any protective order which

the Commonwealth might obtain under this rule, the

Commonwealth shall disclose to the defendant’s

attorney all of the following requested items or

information, provided they are material to the instant

case. The Commonwealth shall, when applicable,

permit the defendant’s attorney to inspect and copy

or photograph such items.

* * *

(e) any results or reports of scientific tests, expert

opinions, and written or recorded reports of polygraph

examinations or other physical or mental

examinations of the defendant that are within the

possession or control of the attorney for the

Commonwealth;

(2) Discretionary With the Court.

* * *

(b) If an expert whom the attorney for the

- 13 -

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

Commonwealth intends to call in any proceeding has

not prepared a report of examination or tests, the

court, upon motion, may order that the expert

prepare, and that the attorney for the Commonwealth

disclose, a report stating the subject matter on which

the expert is expected to testify; the substance of the

facts to which the expert is expected to testify; and a

summary of the expert’s opinions and the grounds for

each opinion.

* * *

(E) Remedy. If at any time during the course of the

proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a

party has failed to comply with this rule, the court may order

such party to permit discovery or inspection, may grant a

continuance, or may prohibit such party from introducing

evidence not disclosed, other than testimony of the

defendant, or it may enter such other order as it deems just

under the circumstances.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 573 (A)-(B), (E).

The Comment to Rule 573 further provides:

Pursuant to paragraphs (B)(2)(b) and (C)(2),[3] the trial

judge has discretion, upon motion, to order an expert who

is expected to testify at trial to prepare a report. However,

these provisions are not intended to require a prepared

report in every case. The judge should determine, on a

case-by-case basis, whether a report should be prepared.

For example, a prepared report ordinarily would not be

necessary when the expert is known to the parties and

testifies about the same subject on a regular basis. On the

other hand, a report might be necessary if the expert is not

known to the parties or is going to testify about a new or

controversial technique.

____________________________________________

3 Paragraph (C)(2) of the Rules pertains to a defense expert and is not

applicable here. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(C)(2) (related to disclosure by

defendant).

- 14 -

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

Pa.R.Crim.P. 573, Comment.

Instantly, the trial court found that the Commonwealth committed a

discovery violation when it failed to disclose its proffered expert report until

the month of trial.4 The trial court explained:

As it relates to the Commonwealth’s expert report, this was

not a situation that involved delayed disclosure because of

a laboratory’s inability to conduct proper testing. The

Commonwealth’s proffered expert was a so-called “drug

expert” who proposed to proffer an opinion that the drugs

involved in this case were possessed for purposes of

distribution. The expert’s report reveals that his opinion was

predicated almost entirely upon the volume of drugs that

was confiscated by police. The Commonwealth knew about

the volume of drugs from the date on which [Appellees]

were arrested. Thus, if the Commonwealth wanted to

present an expert regarding distribution of drugs, it could

have procured that expert months before it did. [The trial

court does] not view this situation as one involving a

helpless prosecutor who had no ability to receive an expert

report in a more expeditious fashion.6

6 In addition, [the court explained that it] did not

preclude the Commonwealth from presenting factual

testimony from [its] witness as to the street value of

the drugs that were confiscated. [Its] ruling simply

precluded the Commonwealth from asking opinions as

to the ultimate issue in dispute, i.e., whether the

drugs were possessed and whether they were

possessed with intent to distribute.

(Trial Court Opinion at 19).

We agree with the court’s analysis. The Commonwealth provided its

____________________________________________

4 The trial court also noted with displeasure that defense counsel waited until

the day before trial was to commence before filing the motion in limine

objecting to the late disclosure. (Trial Court Opinion at 18).

- 15 -

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

proffered expert report on April 3, 2023, two weeks prior to the

commencement of the jury trial, and submitted the expert’s CV on

approximately April 12, 2023, only days before trial. (See N.T. Hearing,

4/17/23, at 8). The prosecutor explained at the hearing that she wanted an

expert report because the “citizens of Lebanon County who don’t have contact

with drugs aren’t going to know what the 50 grams of fentanyl means, which

is why I had the expert report prepared when it became clear that this was

going to be going to trial.” (Id. at 9). Appellees indicated that had they

received the expert report and expert CV sooner, “it would have afforded

[them] an opportunity not just to—to have someone, an expert take a look

and say whether or not Trooper Goodling was even qualified to author such a

report.” (Id. at 8). Further, Appellees explained that “Trooper Goodling is

basically ratifying information which was provided to him by the affiants as far

as packaging, packaging for sales and distribution, prices, and things like that.

Those are all things that someone else could have taken a look at and said

this is either accurate or this is inaccurate.” (Id.)

The trial court agreed with Appellees that the late disclosure deprived

Appellees an opportunity to review the Commonwealth’s proffered expert

opinion and determine whether they needed to hire their own expert to

respond to that opinion at trial. Thus, the court ruled that it would not permit

the Commonwealth to qualify Trooper Goodling as an expert or to render an

opinion that the drugs were designed or intended for trafficking as opposed to

- 16 -

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

personal use. (Id. at 10). Instead, the court said the trooper could testify

regarding his qualifications and training and testify about the street value of

the drugs, and the jury would be free to decide whether the drugs were

intended for personal use or delivery. (Id.) On this record, we see no abuse

of discretion concerning the court’s finding that such late disclosure

constituted a discovery violation. See Alston, supra.

Although the Commonwealth cites to the Comment to Rule 573 and

argues on appeal that an expert report was not necessarily required because

“a prepared report ordinarily would not be necessary when the expert is known

to the parties and testifies about the same subject on a regular basis” (see

Commonwealth’s Brief at 21-22), the Commonwealth made no argument at

the hearing that an expert report was not required pursuant to this language

in the Comment to the Rule. Thus, the Commonwealth’s argument for the

first time on appeal that no expert report was required under the facts of this

case is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating issues not raised in trial court

are waived and cannot be raised for first time on appeal).

Further, the trial court decided that a continuance would result in a

significant postponement of trial and would deprive Appellee Berrios of his

choice of trial counsel. Specifically, the court “recognized fully that any

continuance of trial would not be brief because new counsel would have to be

engaged to represent” Appellee Berrios. (Trial Court Opinion at 18). The

court explained “that a continuance would necessarily prevent [Appellee

- 17 -

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

Berrios] from being represented at trial by his lawyer of choice, Attorney

Deiderick.” (Id.) The court also noted that “all three defendants were

incarcerated pending trial and that the pre-trial incarceration could potentially

be extended for months if [the court] were to continue the case.” (Id. at 18-

19). Finally, the court stated that “the prejudice that [it] perceived from a

continuance extended far beyond mere surprise.” (Id. at 19).

Upon review, we see no abuse of discretion concerning the court’s

remedy for the Commonwealth’s late disclosure of Trooper Goodling’s expert

report. We agree with the trial court that a continuance would have been an

inappropriate remedy under the unique procedural posture of this case. As

the trial court noted, a continuance would have resulted in a significant

additional period of pre-trial confinement for Appellees and would have

required Appellee Berrios to proceed with new counsel.5 This prejudice goes

beyond mere surprise. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion by

declining to order a continuance. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(E); Alston, supra;

Smith, supra.

Furthermore, we conclude that the trial court did not err by excluding

the expert opinion of Trooper Goodling that the drugs were possessed with

the intent to deliver. This preclusion did not result in the dismissal of any

____________________________________________

5 We disagree with the Commonwealth’s suggestion that the trial court

“punished” it for the employment decision of Appellee Berrios’s counsel,

Attorney Deiderick. Rather, the trial court focused on the actual prejudice

that all Appellees would suffer if the court granted a continuance.

- 18 -

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

charges. See id. Additionally, the court permitted Trooper Goodling to testify

about the quantity and street value of the drugs. We see no abuse of

discretion in the court’s ruling on Appellees’ motion in limine to preclude the

Commonwealth’s proffered expert testimony. See Belani, supra.

Consequently, the Commonwealth’s first issue merits no relief.

In its second issue, the Commonwealth alleges that the trial court erred

in granting Appellees’ motion in limine to preclude cell phone data recovered

from Appellees’ phones. The Commonwealth argues that it did not commit a

discovery violation because it provided the cell phone data to Appellees as

soon as it received it and did not suppress or fail to disclose any of the data.

The Commonwealth insists it was not at fault for turning over the content of

the phones belatedly, where the cell phones were possessed by the State

Police, not the District Attorney’s Office. (Commonwealth’s Brief at 18-19,

26). Additionally, the Commonwealth asserts that it did not have copies of

the search warrant for the phones because Appellees did not request copies;

therefore, the Commonwealth argues it should not be penalized for not

producing the search warrant. (Id. at 27). The Commonwealth concludes

that the trial court improperly precluding it from using the cell phone data in

its case-in-chief, and this Court must grant relief. We disagree.

“It is well-settled that, even where a cell phone has already been

properly seized, a search of the contents of the phone requires a warrant.”

Commonwealth v. Bowens, 265 A.3d 730, 747 (Pa.Super. 2021), appeal

- 19 -

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

denied, ___ Pa. ___, 279 A.3d 508 (2022) (citations omitted). Rule of

Criminal Procedure 208 requires that a copy of any search warrant and the

affidavit in support of the warrant, shall be left “with the person from whose

premises the property was taken.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 208.

Here, the trial court found that a discovery violation occurred where the

Commonwealth failed to disclose the search warrant used to access Appellees’

cell phones. (Trial Court Opinion at 18). The court explained:

… [T]he Commonwealth never disclosed the search warrant

police used to gain access to [Appellees’] cellular phones.

Not when the search warrant was obtained. Not when

discovery was originally turned over. Not when the original

tranche of information was submitted in early April. Not

when the Commonwealth identified three (3) passages from

[text messages] that it wanted to use. Not even up to the

point where [the trial court] conducted a hearing on the

Motion in Limine after jury selection had occurred.

(Id. at 20) (emphasis in original).

We see no abuse of discretion concerning the court’s decision that the

Commonwealth’s failure to turn over a copy of the search warrant for

Appellees’ cell phones constituted a discovery violation.6 See Pa.R.Crim.P.

208; Bowes, supra.

____________________________________________

6 Because we conclude that the Commonwealth committed a discovery

violation by failing to turn over the search warrant for the cell phone

information, we need not discuss whether the Commonwealth’s belated

production of the content of the cell phone data (which the Commonwealth

claimed had been in possession of the state police) also constituted a

discovery violation. We may affirm the trial court’s decision based on any

(Footnote Continued Next Page)

- 20 -

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

Although the Commonwealth suggests that Appellees did not request

the search warrant in discovery, counsel for Appellee Berrios explained at the

hearing:

There’s been no report provided indicating how or upon

what basis the Commonwealth had to enter the phones.

There’s no indication if any search warrant was requested,

sought, or obtained to gain access to that information.

So we’re basically—we’re in the dark relative to how these

phones were accessed and whether or not the

Commonwealth even had a right to access them. There’s

no mention anywhere in the discovery of attempting to

download or extricate information from those phones.

(N.T. Hearing at 18-19). Counsel for Appellee Batista echoed that argument,

indicating that the police report mentioned a search warrant for the vehicle,

but it did not “make any mention about obtaining a search warrant for the

phones or securing consent to search the phones.” (Id. at 22). Counsel for

Appellee Berrios reiterated that there was “no mention of a search warrant for

phones or an attempt to access those phones until…extremely late in the

game.” (Id. at 23-24). Under these circumstances, the Commonwealth’s

suggestion that Appellees failed to request a search warrant that they were

unaware existed appears disingenuous. As the trial court observed, “[h]ow

could [Appellees] file a suppression motion if they don’t even have the search

warrant in discovery in order to ascertain whether the search warrant was

____________________________________________

ground supported by the record. See Commonwealth v. Lehman, 275 A.3d

513, 520 n.5 (Pa.Super. 2022), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 286 A.3d 213

(2022).

- 21 -

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

proper or not?” (Id. at 20).

Thus, the trial court precluded the Commonwealth from using the text

messages in its case-in-chief, but the court would “leave the door open for

using the text messages on rebuttal if [it gave] defense a copy of the search

warrant” that day. (Id. at 24). In that situation, the court stated that it would

“look at any constitutional arguments…regarding suppression of that

information,” and, if there was not a valid suppression issue, the court would

allow the texts to be used on rebuttal, but not the case in chief. (Id.)

Notably, the court’s preclusion of this evidence from the

Commonwealth’s case-in-chief did not result in the dismissal of any charges.

Smith, supra. Further, as we have explained, a continuance would have

been inappropriate under the circumstances of this case.7 Rather, the court

provided a remedy that was “just under the circumstances.” See Pa.R.Crim.P.

573(E). We cannot say that the court abused its discretion in ruling on

Appellee’s motion in limine in this case. See Belani, supra. Accordingly, the

Commonwealth is not entitled to relief on appeal, and we affirm.

Orders affirmed.

Judge Colins joins this memorandum.

Judge McLaughlin concurs in the result.

____________________________________________

7 We further note that the “phone dumps” turned over in the month of trial

contained “nine gigabytes of information” or “over six million pages.” (N.T.

Hearing at 26).

- 22 -

J-S43023-23

J-S43024-23

J-S43025-23

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 01/03/2024

- 23 -