J-S08022-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
EDDIE MITCHELL
Appellant No. 1743 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of June 3, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0005026-2013
BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., WECHT, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY WECHT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 18, 2015
Eddie Mitchell appeals the June 3, 2014, judgment of sentence. We
affirm.
The trial court set forth the pertinent factual history of this case as
follows:
On February 11, 2012, at about 5:15 p.m., in response to a
radio call, Philadelphia Police Officer Joseph Pannick arrived at
2431 Master Street in Philadelphia. Officer Pannick observed
Maurice Hampton lying on Master Street [and] suffering from
multiple gunshot wounds. Officer Pannick observed a semi-
automatic firearm on the ground about two feet away. Officer
Pannick transported Hampton to Temple University Hospital
where he was pronounced dead at 5:27 p.m.
According to Dr. Gary Lincoln Collins, Deputy Chief Medical
Examiner and an expert in forensic pathology, Hampton
sustained two perforating gunshot wounds to his torso. One
gunshot was to Hampton’s left back that injured his heart, aorta,
and lung, and exited through the chest. The other gunshot was
to his right back that hit his lung and exited through his chest.
J-S08022-15
Officer Edward Fidler of the Crime Scene Unit arrived at the
crime scene at 6:08 p.m. Officer Fidler recovered fifteen ten-
millimeter fired cartridge casings from the area of 25 th and
Master Streets and a projectile lodged in the tire of the van near
where Hampton collapsed. All fifteen fired cartridge casings
were fired from a single, unrecovered firearm. Near the same
van, Officer Fidler also recovered a nine-millimeter Ruger semi-
automatic firearm with a live round in the chamber and a
magazine loaded with fifteen live rounds.
On February 11, 2012, at 9:10 p.m., Detective Thorsten Lucke,
an expert in forensic recovery and analysis of surveillance video,
recovered surveillance video from 3 Sisters Grocery located at
2500 West Master Street. The video shows the intersection of
Master and 25th Streets and about eight minutes before the
murder, Hampton appears on Master Street. At [5]:04 p.m., a
burgundy vehicle parks on 25th Street near 3 Sisters Grocery.
The video shows [Mitchell] waiting around the area of 25th and
Master Streets for a few minutes prior to the incident. [Mitchell]
is standing on 25th Street when Hampton exits the store holding
a black plastic bag. As Hampton begins to walk north on 25 th
Street, [Mitchell] pulls out a gun and shoots at Hampton.
Hampton turns and runs down Master Street. [Mitchell] chases
after Hampton, but Hampton collapses near a van. [Mitchell]
then runs southbound on 25th Street.
On the night of the shooting at about 5:15 p.m., Jakyle Young
and his cousin Bashir McGough drove to the corner store located
at 25th and Master Street[] in a burgundy Pontiac. Young spoke
briefly with Hampton inside the corner store. Young and
McGough left the store and got back into their car. On February
16, 2012, Young gave a statement to police in which he
explained that while he was sitting in the car he observed
Hampton walk down Master Street when a man he knew as
“Abdul” started shooting at Hampton. Hampton heard about ten
gunshots and saw Abdul run south on 25th Street. Young
explained that he knew Abdul from the mosque on 2nd Street and
Girard Avenue. On August 28, 2012, Young identified [Mitchell]
as the shooter from a photo array. At trial, Young testified that
he heard gunshots, but did not witness the shooting.
On April 16, 2012, Latoya Ransome, Hampton’s girlfriend, gave a
statement to police. Ransome was shown the surveillance video
from which she identified the shooter as a man she knew as
“Stacks.” Ransome explained that Stacks and Hampton were
-2-
J-S08022-15
having problems because they were both dating a woman named
Rasheeda Wesley. On September 5, 2012, Ransome identified
[Mitchell] from a photo array as the shooter in the video. At
trial, Ransome denied identifying [Mitchell].
A few weeks after the murder, Nichole Bennett, Hampton’s
sister, saw the surveillance video depicting the murder on an
internet website. On April 17, 2012, after viewing the video in
the Homicide Division, she identified the shooter as [Mitchell], a
man she knew as “Stacks.” Bennett gave the detectives Stacks’
phone number, which was later determined to be [Mitchell’s]
phone number. Bennett explained that [Mitchell] and Hampton
were having problems because they were dating the same
woman. On July 30, 2012, Bennett identified [Mitchell] from a
photo array. Bennett identified [Mitchell] as the shooter on the
video at trial.
On September 6, 2012, [Mitchell] was arrested at his home on
1504 North Stillman Street.
Trial Court Opinion (“T.C.O.”), 7/22/2014, at 2-4 (citations to the notes of
testimony and footnotes omitted).
On June 3, 2014, following a jury trial, Mitchell was convicted of first-
degree murder,1 carrying a concealed firearm without a license,2 and
carrying a firearm in Philadelphia.3 The trial court sentenced Mitchell to a
life sentence without the possibility of parole for the first-degree murder
conviction, a concurrent term of two and one-half to five years’
imprisonment for carrying a concealed firearm without a license, and a
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 2501.
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 6106.
3
18 Pa.C.S. § 6108.
-3-
J-S08022-15
concurrent term of one to two years’ incarceration for carrying a firearm in
Philadelphia. On June 3, 2014, Mitchell filed a timely post-sentence motion
in which he raised, inter alia, a challenge to the weight of the evidence.
Mitchell’s counsel also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. On June 6,
2014, the trial court appointed new counsel to represent Mitchell. On June
10, 2014, the trial court denied Mitchell’s post-sentence motion.
On June 15, 2014, Mitchell filed a timely notice of appeal. On June 17,
2014, the trial court ordered Mitchell to submit a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On July 6, 2014,
Mitchell filed a timely statement. On July 22, 2014, the trial court filed its
opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
Mitchell raises the following question for our review:
Did the trial court err in denying [Mitchell’s] post-sentence
motion because [Mitchell’s] conviction is against the weight of
the evidence in that [Mitchell] was only identified by one non-
recanting witness who was initially unable to identify [Mitchell]?
Brief for Mitchell at 4.
We review a weight of the evidence claim for an abuse of discretion.
When assessing a weight claim, we apply the following standards:
A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is
against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion
of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745,
751-52 (Pa. 2000); Commonwealth v. Brown, 648 A.2d 1177,
1189 (Pa. 1994). A new trial should not be granted because of a
mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same
facts would have arrived at a different conclusion. Widmer, 744
A.2d at 752. Rather, “the role of the trial judge is to determine
that ‘notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of
-4-
J-S08022-15
greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight
with all the facts is to deny justice.’” Id. (citation omitted). It
has often been stated that “a new trial should be awarded when
the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s
sense of justice and the award of a new trial is imperative so
that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.” Brown,
648 A.2d at 1189.
An appellate court’s standard of review when presented with a
weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of
review applied by the trial court:
Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the
exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of
whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
Brown, 648 A.2d at 1189. Because the trial judge has
had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence
presented, an appellate court will give the gravest
consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the
trial judge when reviewing a trial court’s determination
that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 354 A.2d 545 (Pa.
1976). One of the least assailable reasons for granting or
denying a new trial is the lower court’s conviction that the
verdict was or was not against the weight of the evidence
and that a new trial should be granted in the interest of
justice.
Widmer, 744 A.2d at 753 (emphasis added).
Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1054-55 (Pa. 2013) (citations
modified).
Our task in such a challenge is as follows:
To determine whether a trial court’s decision constituted a
palpable abuse of discretion, an appellate court must examine
the record and assess the weight of the evidence; not however,
as the trial judge, to determine whether the preponderance of
the evidence opposes the verdict, but rather to determine
whether the court below in so finding plainly exceeds the limits
of judicial discretion and invaded the exclusive domain of the
jury. Where the record adequately supports the trial court, the
trial court has acted within the limits of its judicial discretion.
-5-
J-S08022-15
Brown, 648 A.2d at 1190 (citation omitted).
Mitchell argues that the identification evidence presented at trial was
so incredible and unreliable that it should have shocked the conscience of
the court, necessitating a new trial. See Brief for Mitchell at 10-11. Mitchell
points out that two of the witnesses, Young and Ransome, recanted their
statements at trial, claiming that they did not identify Mitchell as the
shooter. Id. Furthermore, Mitchell argues that the only non-recanting
witness, Bennett, identified Mitchell as the shooter only after Bennett
watched the surveillance footage in the presence of the homicide detectives.
Id. Mitchell maintains that the surveillance footage led to a conclusory and
speculative identification. Therefore, Mitchell argues that it was error for the
trial court to deny his post-sentence motion. Id. at 8.
The Commonwealth responds that three witnesses identified Mitchell
as the shooter in signed statements to police, which were later admitted into
evidence. One of those witnesses, Bennett, identified Mitchell as the shooter
at trial. See Brief for the Commonwealth at 5. Additionally, the
Commonwealth contends that Mitchell had a motive for committing the
crime: he and the Hampton had been fighting over the same woman. Id. at
7. The Commonwealth argues that the jury was free to believe the
foregoing testimony and evidence. Id. Therefore, the Commonwealth
argues, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mitchell’s post-
sentence motion. Id.
-6-
J-S08022-15
In analyzing the facts of this case, the trial court determined that the
evidence supported a finding that Mitchell was the shooter. T.C.O. at 5. The
court relied upon a similar case, Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 1139,
1162 (Pa. 2012), in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld an
appellant’s first-degree murder conviction when the only identification
evidence was out-of-court identifications that were later recanted at trial.
The trial court then concluded that the prior identifications, even though
they were later recanted, supported the finding that Mitchell murdered
Hampton. T.C.O. at 5. The trial court relied upon Bennett’s statement to
police identifying Mitchell as the shooter, as well as her in-court identification
of Mitchell. T.C.O. at 6. Bennett explained that, although she initially could
not identify anyone from the online surveillance video, she was able to
identify Mitchell after viewing the video in a clearer format at the Homicide
Division. Id. Lastly, the court relied upon the fact that Mitchell had a
motive to murder Hampton. Id. The trial court concluded that verdict did
not shock one’s sense of justice. Id. We agree with the trial court, and
discern no abuse of the court’s discretion in denying the motion.
On February 11, 2012, at approximately 5:15 p.m., Officer Pannick
observed Hampton lying on Master Street suffering from multiple gunshot
wounds. After transporting him to the hospital, medical personnel
pronounced Hampton dead at 5:27 p.m. Notes of Testimony (“N.T.”),
5/28/2014, at 243, 245, 246-47; N.T., 5/29/2014, at 88.
-7-
J-S08022-15
On February 11, 2012, at 9:10 p.m., Detective Lucke recovered
surveillance video from 3 Sisters Grocery located near the scene of the
crime. The video also shows a burgundy vehicle located near the crime, as
well as Mitchell waiting around the area for a few minutes prior to the
incident. When Hampton exited the store and began to walk down the
street, Mitchell pulled out a gun and shot Hampton. Hampton ran away, but
soon after collapsed near a van while Mitchell fled the area. N.T.,
5/28/2014, at 42, 44, 51-57.
On August 28, 2012, Young identified Mitchell as the shooter from a
photo array. However, at trial Young testified that he heard gunshots but
did not witness the shooting. N.T., 5/28/2014, at 75-76, 78, 84, 102-105,
109, 110, 130, 216-217.
On April 16, 2012, Ransome gave a statement to police identifying the
shooter in the surveillance video as a man she knew as “Stacks.” Ransome
explained that Hampton and Stacks were dating the same woman. On
September 5, 2012, Ransome identified Mitchell as the shooter from a photo
array. However, at trial, Ransome denied ever identifying Mitchell. N.T.,
5/28/2014, at 177, 180-181, 184-185, 195.
A few weeks after the murder, Bennett saw the surveillance video on a
website but was unable to identify the shooter due to the poor quality of the
video. However, on April 17, 2012, after viewing the surveillance video in
better quality at the Homicide Division, Bennett identified the shooter as a
man she knew as “Stacks.” Bennett gave police Stacks’ phone number,
-8-
J-S08022-15
which matched Mitchell’s phone number. On July 30, 2012, Bennett
identified Mitchell as the shooter from a photo array. Bennett also identified
Mitchell as the shooter at trial. N.T., 5/29/2012, at 103-107, 111, 114, 116,
118; N.T., 6/2/2014, at 13-14.
Mitchell’s argument relies upon the fact that only Bennett, who initially
was unable to identify Mitchell as the shooter, did so at trial. However,
Young and Ransome also identified Mitchell as the shooter in signed
statements to police. Although those identifications were recanted at trial, a
first-degree murder conviction nonetheless can be predicated exclusively, or
in part, upon out-of-court identifications that are recanted at trial. See
Brown, 52 A.3d at 1162. Therefore, Young and Ransome’s out-of-court
identifications support the conclusion that Mitchell murdered Hampton.
Additionally, Bennett identified Mitchell as the shooter to the police and
during Mitchell’s trial. The jury was free to believe or disbelieve any
testimony in reaching its verdict. Furthermore, the jury viewed the
surveillance video, allowing the jurors to identify the shooter for themselves.
The aforementioned evidence is further corroborated by the fact that Mitchell
had a motive to kill Hampton, namely that the two were fighting over the
same woman. The record adequately supports the jury’s verdict, and we
find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying Mitchell’s weight of
the evidence claim. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-9-
J-S08022-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/18/2015
- 10 -