Summary
The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed Trevor Joel Bloom’s judgment of sentence following convictions for drug delivery resulting in death, delivery of a controlled substance, and recklessly endangering another person. The court rejected his sufficiency challenge and addressed his claims concerning expert reliance on a toxicology report and confrontation rights. The excerpt also identifies a sentencing challenge, but the provided text does not include the opinion’s complete analysis or disposition of all issues.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Bloom intentionally delivered a controlled substance to LaBorde and that her death resulted from use of that substance, supporting convictions for drug delivery resulting in death and delivery of a controlled substance.
- Whether admitting the medical examiner's testimony about the toxicology results violated Bloom's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights because the toxicologist who performed the testing was not called to testify.
- Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that the toxicology report and underlying data could be considered only as the basis for the expert's opinion and not as substantive evidence.
- Whether Bloom's discretionary sentencing claims were preserved and, if so, whether the sentence was excessive, based on an improper factor, or inadequately explained.
Holdings
- The evidence was sufficient to support both convictions. Drug delivery resulting in death requires intentional administration, dispensing, delivery, giving, prescribing, selling, or distribution of a controlled substance in violation of the Controlled Substance Act, followed by death resulting from use of the substance; delivery of a controlled substance requires a knowing actual, constructive, or attempted transfer without legal authority.
- The trial court did not violate Bloom's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights by permitting the medical examiner to testify about the toxicology results without calling the toxicologist, because the toxicology report was not testimonial.
- Bloom waived his challenge to the trial court's refusal to give the requested limiting instruction because he did not make a specific objection after the court declined to give it. In the alternative, the court did not abuse its discretion, and any error would have been harmless.
- Bloom waived his discretionary sentencing claims because he did not raise them at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion.
Key quotations
“We have stated that this crime “consists of two principal elements: (i) [i]ntentionally administering, dispensing, delivering, giving, prescribing, selling or distributing any controlled substance or counterfeit controlled substance and (ii) death caused by (‘resulting from’) the use of that drug.”” (at 4)
“The record before us demonstrates that the toxicology report was created for the primary purpose of establishing the victim’s cause of death; it was not made to prove some fact in a criminal proceeding, to serve an evidentiary purpose, or to aid in a police investigation.” (at 25)
“Based on this record, we agree with the trial court and the Commonwealth that Appellant failed to preserve his sentencing claims in his post-sentence motion.” (at 34)
Factual background
Bloom provided Lindsey LaBorde, with whom he lived, a small line of heroin containing Fentanyl after she complained of a headache. Bloom left the room and returned approximately twenty minutes later to find LaBorde unresponsive; he attempted resuscitation and called 911. LaBorde was pronounced dead, and toxicology testing showed a lethal concentration of Fentanyl in her blood; the medical examiner determined that she died from an accidental Fentanyl overdose.
Procedural history
Bloom was charged in the Clearfield County Court of Common Pleas with drug delivery resulting in death, delivery of a controlled substance, recklessly endangering another person, and involuntary manslaughter. Following a December 2023 jury trial, he was convicted of all charges except involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced on February 12, 2024, to an aggregate term of six to twelve years' incarceration. The trial court denied the parties' post-sentence motions, and Bloom timely appealed.