Commonwealth v. James, 2011 Pa. Super. 125 (Pa. Super. 2011)

Opinion by Donohue, J.

Police saw James conduct a hand-to-hand transaction with an unidentified white male, in which he sold him twelve Oxycodone pills for sixteen dollars.  He was arrested and charged with, inter alia, possession of a controlled substance.

At trial, James testified that the Oxycodone he had been seen with was a valid prescription, that he had been issued because of back and arm pain.  The label on the pill-bottle that the Commonwealth introduced into evidence corroborated this claim.  The trial court, however, held that James' testimony was not credible, and noted that it believed the label to be forged.  James appealed.

The Superior Court began its analysis by explaining that a conviction for possession requires proof of three elements: (1) possession of a controlled substance, (2) intent to possess a controlled substance, and (3) non-authorization because of a lack of registration, licensure, or a valid prescription.  Proof of the third element would be impossible - to do so would require the Commonwealth to call every licensed pharmacist and physician to testify they had not issued James a prescription - and therefore Pennsylvania courts employ a burden shifting scheme with respect to proof of non-authorization: a rebuttable presumption of non-authorization exists, and the Commonwealth’s duty to prove non-authorization beyond a reasonable doubt arises if (and only if) the defendant first presents sufficient credible evidence to raise a reasonable doubt as to non-authorization. 

In this case, the trial court concluded that James had not presented sufficient credible evidence to raise a reasonable doubt as to non-authorization, because it found his testimony to be not believable.  The Superior Court disagreed, and held that, although a defendant's self-serving testimony would not be sufficient alone, the label on the pill-bottle, in conjunction with that testimony, was sufficient to shift the burden to the Commonwealth.  Because the Commonwealth did not produce evidence of non-authorization at trial, the Court vacated his judgment of sentence.

Read the Opinion.