A Huntingdon County woman has lost an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court in which she challenged her conviction and probationary sentence on a charge of possession of drug paraphernalia.

Trina D. Hess, 47, of Six Mile Run was convicted after a non-jury trial before Huntingdon County Judge George N. Zanic of possessing a red pill grinder, a cut straw and a “white powdery substance” when the car in which she was riding was stopped by a state trooper in March 2018.

Trooper Jacob Allison stopped a vehicle being driven by Hess’s daughter because it had an expired registration.

When he approached the car, the trooper detected the smell of marijuana and then spotted the pill grinder, straw and substance.

Hess told the trooper she used the pill grinder and straw to snort suboxone provided to her by her doctor.

During her trial however, Hess stated she had lied to the trooper. She said the drug paraphernalia belonged to a friend.

Her husband, when he took the stand, stated the pill grinder belonged to him.

The judge found her guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia and placed her on a year’s probation.

Huntingdon attorney Christopher B. Wencker appealed the judge’s decision to the Superior Court, contending the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a conviction.

In an opinion issued this week by Superior Court Judge Alice B. Dubow, the appeals court dismissed the defense argument because it did not specify how the evidence was insufficient.

“Pennsylvania Courts have consistently held that for sufficiency of evidence challenges, (the defense) “needs to specify the element or elements upon which the evidence was insufficient, and failure to do so results in waiver of the issue on appeal,” according to the Dubow opinion.

Two other judges, Anne E. Lazarus and Megan King, joined the opinion.

Because the defense did not get specific as to how the evidence was insufficient, the Huntingdon County judge was “not able to comprehend (Hess’s) claim of error,” the Superior Court reasoned.

The county judge, in explaining why he rejected the defense appeal, concluded he based his decision on witness credibility.

The Superior Court concluded the defense therefore had waived its insufficiency claim.

In a footnote, however, the Superior Court indicated it believed the evidence was sufficient to convict based on the trooper’s testimony that Hess initially admitted the paraphernalia belonged to her.