Pennsylvania Superior Court Ruling: Commonwealth v. Sami

Com. v. Sami, N. No. 252 EDA 2020

,

Commonwealth v. Sami is a discussion of relevant evidence and evaluating probative value against prejudice.

In this case, the defendant was arrested after being found in a residence with 2 deceased women and admitting to their murders. At the time, she claimed that she was a marijuana user but it was not suspected that she was under the influence of anything at the time and no toxicology was done to determine if she had any intoxicants in her system. Defense investigators had also spoken with her family members who opined that she may have used other drugs besides marijuana and that some drug paraphernalia was found in her home. The defendant filed a notice of insanity defense, claiming that her diagnosis of delusional disorder and intense paranoia at the time significantly compromised her ability to understand the nature and wrongfulness of her actions.

In response to her insanity defense, the Commonwealth filed an expert report that claimed her delusions were caused by voluntary intoxication due to ingestion of marijuana and other drugs. Defense counsel requested that the portion of the commonwealth’s expert report relating to other drugs should be stricken. The Court granted the defense motion and the commonwealth appealed, certifying that the court order substantially handicapped their ability to prosecute the case.

The rules of evidence state that all relevant evidence is admissible and that evidence that is not relevant is not admissible. Further, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and the fact is of consequence in determining the action. However, the court can exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. In this case, the court found that evidence of defendants’ prior drug use is relevant to rebut an insanity defense to murder charges by showing that the defendant’s mental illness was drug induced psychosis. Nevertheless, in this case the Commonwealth has not shown that the disputed evidence of the defendant’s alleged use of methamphetamine and cocaine is relevant such that it logically tends to establish a material fact in the case, tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable or supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding a material fact. Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish a close factual nexus sufficient to demonstrate the connective relevance between her possible possession of drugs to the crimes in question. The Commonwealth has not presented any evidence to show that the defendant ingested these drugs on or around the time of the crime. The only evidence that drugs existed consist of the statements of the defendant’s family members concerning items they observed in her bedroom. The court finds that the probative value of this evidence is outweighed by the potential for prejudice to the defense. Allowing the prosecution to admit speculative evidence of the defendant’s possible drug use that lacked a factual nexus to the murder charges would have the potential to confuse the jury or to result in unfair prejudice in suggesting a decision on an improper basis or to divert the jurys’ attention away from its duty of weighing the evidence impartially.