Opinion
J. A26006/15 No. 1777 MDA 2014
11-06-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. JESSICA LYNN ALINSKY
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Dated October 7, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Criminal Division at No. CP-40-CR-0003915-2013
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., WECHT AND PLATT, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
This case concerns the death of Matthew Gailie. The Commonwealth charged Jessica Alinsky ("appellee") with criminal homicide and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. Herein, the Commonwealth appeals from the order of October 7, 2014, which denied the Commonwealth's motion in limine , which sought to introduce evidence that appellee staged a false burglary at her residence six months prior to Mr. Gailie's death. We affirm on the trial court's opinion.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2501 and 4910, respectively.
The Commonwealth may appeal an interlocutory order denying the use of evidence when it provides a certification with its notice of appeal that the order terminates or substantially handicaps the prosecution. Commonwealth v. Whitlock , 69 A.3d 635, 636 n.2 (Pa.Super. 2013), citing Pa.R.A.P. 311(d). As the trial court ruling excludes Commonwealth evidence, and the Commonwealth has certified that the effect of the ruling substantially handicaps the prosecution, we find that this appeal is properly before this court.
The trial court recited the facts of this case as follows:
In the late evening of September 2, 2011, the Pennsylvania State Police were dispatched to a residence at Eagle Rock Development, Hazle Township, Luzerne County, as a result of a 911 call from Jessica Alinsky. Ms. Alinsky reported that her boyfriend, Matthew Gailie, had shot himself in the head. When the police arrived at the scene, they found Mr. Gailie lying on his back with a gunshot wound near his left nostril. Jessica Lynn Alinsky was charged with Criminal Homicide and Tamper With/Fabricate Physical Evidence.
On October 6, 2014, the Court entertained various pre-trial motions, including the Commonwealth's Motion in Limine to allow testimony and evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts of the defendant under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b), specifically the staging of a crime scene on March 2, 2011. After argument and the review of the evidence, the Court denied said motion. The Commonwealth now appeals.
The Commonwealth seeks the admission of evidence that Ms. Alinsky staged a burglary at her residence, in [sic] prior to the alleged homicide, to give the impression that her home had been burglarized. According to the Commonwealth, Ms. Alinsky not only staged a burglary but lied to law enforcement personnel, created an elaborate story to accompany the staged scene and physically manipulated item[s] in her home to support the staging.
At the time of argument on this Motion, the Commonwealth conceded that Ms. Alinsky did not call the police to report the burglary on or ab[o]ut
March 2, 2011. Further, the Commonwealth asserts that the "March staged burglary" took place while Mr. Gailie was at work. When Mr. Gailie arrived home, Ms. Alinsky told him about the incident, and he, in turn, called the Eagle Rock security. It was Eagle Rock Security that called the police. The police questioned both Ms. Alinsky and Mr. Gailie. Nothing was stolen. No arrest was made.Trial court opinion, 3/10/15 at 1-2.
The Commonwealth next argued that Ms. Alinsky made statements on prison recordings that the crime scene in the March incident was staged, and that[,] in turn, is important to prove motive and intent and support the theory of first degree murder. The Commonwealth's assertion is that the March staged burglary is applicable to the lesser charge of tampering or fabricating evidence.
With regard to the Motion, the Commonwealth did not provide testimony. Rather, during argument, the Commonwealth provided the Court with recordings as well as information and reports of the March staged burglary, including statements made by Ms. Alinsky to the Eagle Rock security and the Pennsylvania State Police.
The Defense contends that [the] March staged burglary does not mean that Ms. Alinsky committed murder in September. Ms. Alinsky further asserts that the March staged burglary is prejudicial.
There is a distinction between the March staged burglary and the underlying criminal homicide. In the March staged burglary, Ms. Alinsky did not call the police as she did on the evening of September 2, 2011. In the first scenario, there is no evidence that she was trying to get away with a crime. Whereas, in the second scenario, even by the Commonwealth's own position, she allegedly staged the crime scene so that she would not be charged with homicide and make Mr. Gailie's death appear to be suicide.
Through its motion in limine , the Commonwealth sought to introduce evidence that appellee had staged a burglary six months prior to Mr. Gailie's death, and then subsequently lied to the police about the staged burglary. (Commonwealth's brief at 8.) The trial court considered arguments relating to the Commonwealth's motion on October 6, 2014, before denying the motion. The Commonwealth filed notice of appeal on October 14, 2014, and pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925, the trial court filed an opinion.
The Commonwealth presents the following issue for our review:
Did the Lower Court abuse its discretion and err, thereby terminating or substantially handicapping the Commonwealth's prosecution of the Appellee, by denying the Commonwealth's Motion In Limine / Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b) Notice of Intention to Seek to Admit Evidence of Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts of the Defendant when the Commonwealth intended to introduce evidence that the Appellee, six (6) months prior to the incident giving rise to the current charges which include Criminal Homicide, staged a crime scene; namely, that of a purported burglary at her residence, so as to give the impression that her home had been burglarized and when the Commonwealth intended to introduce said evidence so as to demonstrate the Appellee's motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, common scheme, plan or design or identity?Appellant's brief at 4.
Based on our careful review of the record, the briefs, and Judge Tina Polachek Gartley's comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion dated March 10, 2015, we affirm.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/6/2015
Image materials not available for display.