Com. v. Williams, R.

J-A29031-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
RAYSHAWN WILLIAMS, :
:
Appellant : No. 537 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 25, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Criminal Division, No(s): CP-02-CR-0012281-2013;
CP-02-CR-0014922-2014

BEFORE: DUBOW, MOULTON and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JANUARY 19, 2017

Rayshawn Williams (“Williams”) appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered following his conviction of first-degree murder and persons

not to possess or use a firearm.1 We vacate the judgment of sentence and

remand for a new trial.

On July 31, 2013, at approximately 4:00 p.m., three men and the

victim, Derick Lyman (“Lyman”), argued in the hallway outside of the

apartment where Lyman lived with his girlfriend, Tayla Wright (“Wright”). In

that verbal altercation, the three men, known to Wright as “Tay Tay,” “J-

Zombie” and “Judd,” argued with Lyman about “someone’s brother getting

robbed.” Trial Court Opinion, 1/19/16, at 6 (citation omitted). Following the

argument, Tay Tay and Judd went into the apartment of Natwauna Lane

1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2501(a), 6501(a)(1).
J-A29031-16

(“Lane”) (known to Wright by the nickname, “Nay Nay”). Lyman and J-

Zombie walked up the street to J-Zombie’s house. Lyman thereafter

returned to his apartment.

At about 5:51 p.m., Wright looked out of the window and observed

Williams approaching her apartment building.2 Shortly thereafter, Williams

knocked loudly on Wright’s apartment door. When Wright opened the door,

Williams told Wright that he was “looking for some answers,” at which time

Lyman walked into the hallway with Williams. As she started to follow

Lyman, Wright observed Tay Tay and Judd standing with Williams, and Lane

standing in the hallway, listening to the conversation.

Wright subsequently gathered her daughter and walked out into the

hall, in order to leave the building. As she left, she observed Williams,

Lyman, Tay Tay, Judd and Lane standing in the hallway. At that time,

Wright advised Lyman to go back to their apartment.

Once outside of the apartment, and after giving her daughter to a

friend, Wright moved her vehicle from the front of the building to the back of

the building. As Wright walked back to the building’s entrance, Williams ran

past her. As Williams did so, two girls screamed, at which time Williams told

the girls, “homeys, I’m not going to shoot you.” Wright observed that

Williams was carrying a gun in his right hand, and running with his hoodie

pulled up a “little bit over his face.” Id. (citation omitted).

2
Wright recognized Williams as “Ray Ray,” from the Homewood
neighborhood in which she grew up.

-2-
J-A29031-16

Wright’s mother screamed at Wright to get inside, as someone had

just been shot. Once inside, Wright found Lyman lying on the hallway floor,

near Lane’s door. Although Lyman was transported to the hospital, he died

as a result of multiple gunshot wounds.

At the hospital, Wright spoke with Pittsburgh Police Detective Harry

Lutton (“Detective Lutton”), and identified the shooter as “Ray Ray.”

Thereafter, at police headquarters, Wright identified Williams as the

assailant, from a collection of photographs in a binder.

Several days later, Williams was arrested. At the police station, upon

being informed of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

(1966), Williams elected to remain silent. However, as police detectives

were leaving the room, Williams inquired as to whether he could ask the

detectives a question. When the detectives responded in the affirmative,

Williams stated, “[w]hat happens now?” and “what did I do?” Trial Court

Opinion, 1/19/16, at 13 (citation omitted). The detectives again explained

the allegations against Williams, to which Williams responded, “That’s not

me. Check me out. Check my charges. I’m a drug dealer. I deal drugs.”

Id. When the detectives asked Williams about video surveillance footage,

Williams stated, “That’s it. I’m done talking.” Id.

Williams filed pretrial suppression Motions seeking to suppress, inter

alia, his statement to police: “That’s it, I’m done talking.” N.T. (Pretrial

Hearing), 4/16/14, at 5-7). Williams also sought to suppress Wright’s

-3-
J-A29031-16

identification of Williams from the binder of photographs. The trial court

denied Williams’s suppression Motions. The jury ultimately convicted

Williams of the above-described charges, after which the trial court

sentenced Williams to an aggregate prison term of life in prison. Williams

filed a Post Sentence Motion, which the trial court denied. Thereafter,

Williams filed the instant timely appeal, followed by a court-ordered

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.

Williams presents the following claims for our review:

I. Did the trial court err in denying the “Motion to Suppress
Photo Array Identifications Made by [Wright,]” where the
identification procedure was highly suggestive and the
Commonwealth failed to establish an independent basis for []
Wright’s identification of [] Williams?

II. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by allowing Detective
[Hal] Bolin [“Detective Bolin”] to impeach [Lane] with her prior
inconsistent statements[,] where the probative value of this
testimony was outweighed by the danger of prejudice?

III. Did the trial court err in denying [] Williams’[s] Motion to
Suppress statements where the Commonwealth failed to present
any evidence at the suppression hearing to rebut [] Williams’[s]
assertions that the statements were unconstitutionally obtained?

IV. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by allowing the
Commonwealth to present [] Williams’[s] post-arrest, post-
Miranda silence as substantive evidence of guilt?

Brief for Appellant at 6 (some capitalization omitted, issues renumbered).

Williams first claims that the trial court improperly denied his Motion to

suppress Wright’s pretrial identification of him from a binder of photographs.

Id. at 56. Williams argues that the evidence presented at the suppression

-4-
J-A29031-16

hearing “undeniably established that the photograph identification procedure

was unduly suggestive.” Id. According to Williams, the trial court

improperly denied suppression “without hearing any evidence to establish an

independent basis for Wright’s identifications.” Id. Claiming that the photo

array was unduly suggestive, Williams states that the police presented

Williams with a binder containing two to three hundred photographs, which

were color-coded by neighborhood and identified the individuals by name.

Id. at 60-61. Williams asserts that his name was listed under his

photograph, in the Homewood section of the binder, under the heading

“Ra[ce] Street Crips.” Id. at 61. In addition, Williams asserts that the

binder, the “Zone 5 Gang Book,” was unduly suggestive as it only contained

photographs of suspected gang members. Id.

In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the appropriate law, addressed

Williams’s first claim and concluded that it lacks merit. See Trial Court

Opinion, 1/19/16, at 20-27. We agree with and adopt the conclusion

reached by the trial court, and affirm its resolution of Williams’s claim on this

basis. See id.

In his second claim, Williams argues that the trial court improperly

allowed the Commonwealth to call Detective Bolin, “strictly to impeach

[Lane] with her previous inconsistent statements that [] Williams was

present in her apartment building shortly before the shooting.” Brief for

Appellant at 65. According to Williams, Lane’s prior statements “bore

-5-
J-A29031-16

directly on the central issue at trial: the identity of the shooter.” Id.

Williams posits that the jury improperly used the testimony as substantive

evidence of his guilt, despite a cautionary instruction by the trial court. Id.

Williams directs our attention to case law in which testimony regarding prior

inconsistent statements was deemed too prejudicial to be admissible at trial.

Id. at 66-69.

The trial court set forth the relevant law in its Opinion, addressed

Williams’s claim, and concluded that it lacks merit. See Trial Court Opinion,

1/19/16, at 27-31. We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court, as

set forth its Opinion, and affirm on this basis as to Williams’s second claim.

See id.

In his third claim, Williams argues that the trial court improperly

denied his suppression Motion, where the Commonwealth failed to present

evidence at the hearing to rebut Williams’s claim that his statements to

police were unconstitutionally obtained. Brief for Appellant at 29-30.

According to Williams, it was the Commonwealth’s burden to produce such

evidence at the suppression hearing. Id. at 30. Williams asserts that the

Commonwealth presented no evidence at the suppression hearing that

would meet this burden and, therefore, the statements should be

suppressed. Id. at 32. Williams states that he preserved his challenge by

filing his Motion to suppress his statement. Id. at 31.

-6-
J-A29031-16

In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the appropriate law, addressed

Williams’s claim, and concluded that it lacks merit. See Trial Court Opinion,

1/19/16, at 10-12. We agree with and adopt the trial court’s reasoning.

See id. We additionally note the following.

At the suppression hearing, the Commonwealth did not dispute

Williams’s factual basis for his suppression Motion. The Commonwealth

agreed with the assertion in Williams’s Motion that, after police had arrested

Williams and told him of his rights pursuant to Miranda, Williams invoked

his right to remain silent. N.T., 4/15/14, at 4-6. The Commonwealth

agreed that Williams reinitiated questioning, after invoking Miranda, when

he asked the officers why he was going to jail. Id. The Commonwealth

agreed that Williams told police that he did not commit the homicide, and

that he “is a drug dealer.” Id. at 5, 6. The Commonwealth did not dispute

that the police officers then asked Williams, “What about the surveillance

video?” Id. at 5, 6. Finally, the Commonwealth did not dispute that

Williams told the officers that he was not going to say anything else, and

that he was done talking. Id.

At the hearing, defense counsel and the Commonwealth disagreed as

to the application of the law to the facts, as stated by both counsel. Id. at

6-7. Defense counsel offered no objection to the trial court hearing

argument as to the legal basis for Williams’s Motion. See id. Under these

circumstances, we agree with the suppression court’s conclusion that

-7-
J-A29031-16

Williams waived his challenge to the Commonwealth’s failure to present

evidence at the suppression hearing, by failing to raise the issue before the

trial court. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating that an issue cannot be raised for

the first time on appeal).

Finally, Williams challenges the denial of his Motion to suppress his

post-arrest statement to police, “That’s it. I’m done talking.” Brief for

Appellant at 46. Williams contends that this statement was taken in

violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Id.

Williams argues that the admission of this statement violated his

constitutional right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment to the United

States Constitution, and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Id.

As our Supreme Court has explained,

questions concerning the admissibility of evidence are within the
sound discretion of the trial court and will only be reversed upon
a showing that the court abused its discretion. Commonwealth
v. Johnson, 615 Pa. 354, 42 A.3d 1017, 1027 (Pa. 2012). An
abuse of discretion occurs where “the law is overridden or
misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly
unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill
will, as shown by the evidence or the record.” Commonwealth
v. Randolph, 582 Pa. 576, 873 A.2d 1277, 1281 (Pa. 2005).
However, to the extent the question presents as “an issue
involving a constitutional right, it is a question of law; thus, our
standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is
plenary.” Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 619 Pa. 178, 58 A.3d
754, 762 (Pa. 2012).

Commonwealth v. Adams, 104 A.3d 511, 517 (Pa. 2014).

-8-
J-A29031-16

Both the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution

protect every person against being compelled to be a witness against himself

or herself. U.S. Const. amend. V; PA. CONST. article I, § 9.3 In

Commonwealth v. Molina, 104 A.3d 430 (Pa. 2014), an evenly divided

Pennsylvania Supreme Court “view[ed] the drawing of an adverse inference

from a defendant’s silence to be encompassed within the right against

compelled self-incrimination.” Id. at 450. “[A]llowing reference to a

defendant’s silence as substantive evidence endangers the truth-determining

process[,] given our recognition that individuals accused of a crime may

remain silent for any number of reasons.” Id. “To violate this rule, the

testimony must clearly refer to post-arrest silence.” Commonwealth v.

Smith, 995 A.2d 1143, 1155 (Pa. 2010).

While we have interpreted the constitutional right against self-
incrimination generally to prohibit prosecutors from referencing a
defendant’s silence as substantive evidence of guilt, this Court
has also concluded that the right against self-incrimination is not
burdened when the reference to silence is “circumspect” and
does not “create an inference of an admission of guilt.”
[Commonwealth v.] DiNicola, 866 A.2d [329,] 337 [(Pa.
2005)]. As noted above, “[e]ven an explicit reference to silence
is not reversible error where it occurs in a context not likely to
suggest to the jury that silence is the equivalent of a tacit
admission of guilt.” See id. (quoting [Commonwealth v.]
Whitney, 708 A.2d [471,] 478 [(Pa. 1998)]).

Adams, 104 A.3d at 517.

3
In relevant part, the United States Constitution decrees that “No person …
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
U.S. CONST. Amend. V. The Pennsylvania Constitution dictates that the
accused “cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself[.]” PA.
CONST. art. 1, § 9.

-9-
J-A29031-16

Pennsylvania Courts “have consistently regarded testimony about a

defendant’s silence as having an extremely high potential for prejudice.”

Commonwealth v. Clark, 802 A.2d 658, 661 (Pa. Super. 2002); see also

Commonwealth v. Clark, 626 A.2d 154, 158 (Pa. 1993) (recognizing that

“an impermissible reference to the accused’s post-arrest silence is innately

prejudicial.”). Thus, “[a]n impermissible reference to an accused’s post-

arrest silence constitutes reversible error unless shown to be harmless[.]” 4

Commonwealth v. Costa, 742 A.2d 1076, 1077 (Pa. 1999).

Upon our review of the record, we cannot conclude that the error was

harmless. At the suppression hearing, the Commonwealth and defense

counsel agreed that

4
“An error is harmless if it could not have contributed to the verdict, or
stated conversely, an error cannot be harmless if there is a reasonable
possibility the error might have contributed to the conviction.”
Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 130 A.3d 697, 716 (Pa. 2015). Our
Supreme Court has found harmless error where
(1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice
was de minimis;

(2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of
other untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the
erroneously admitted evidence; or

(3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt
was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was
so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have
contributed to the verdict.

Id. at 716 (citations omitted). The Commonwealth has the burden of
proving harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

- 10 -
J-A29031-16

upon questioning by the police after his arrest, [Williams]
invoked his right to remain silent. [The police officers] then told
him, “You are going to the jail.” He expressed confusion about
why. They again said, “Well, you are charged with a homicide.”
[Williams] said, “No, I don’t do that. I’m a drug dealer.”

Then they ask[ed] [Williams], “Well, what about the surveillance
video?” He said, “I’m not saying anything else.”

N.T. (Suppression Hearing), 4/15/14, at 4-5. The trial court denied

Williams’s Motion to suppress his statement, “I’m not saying anything else.”

Trial Court Order, 4/15/14.

At trial, Detective Scott Evans (“Detective Evans”) testified that,

following Williams’s arrest, Williams was informed of his Miranda rights.

N.T., 11/20-21/14, at 92-93. Detective Evans testified as follows regarding

his questioning of Williams:

Q. [The Commonwealth]: And you say you read [the Miranda
warnings] to [Williams]. Do you read it word by word?

A. [Detective Evans]: Yes, sir.

Q. And do you ask him if he understands?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And as you’re going through the form, did he indicate
whether or not he understood what you were telling him?

A. He indicated every single time that I asked him—and I asked
him three times, “Do you understand this?” And all three times
he responded, yes.

Q. And there’s one last question, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was that question?

- 11 -
J-A29031-16

A. “Knowing these rights, are you willing to waive your rights
and answer questions without the presence of a lawyer?”

Q. And what did he say?

A. No.

Q. What did you do?

A. I got up, and I was walking out of the room, and he said,
“Can I ask you a question?” And I sat back down, and I said,
“Sure.” And he said, “What happens now?” And I told him he
was going to be processed on homicide charges. And he said—
he asked me, “Well, what did I do?” And I started to explain to
him the allegations, my understanding from what I read in the
police reports, and that he shot and killed someone in the East
Hills housing project in the City of Pittsburgh. And he said,
“That’s not me. Check me out?” And I said, “Well, apparently
there’s some video surveillance of the area where this incident
occurred.” And he said, “Well, that’s it. I’m done. I’m done
talking. I’m not saying anything else.”

Q. And did you conclude the interview at that point?

A. Yes, I did.

Id. at 93-94.

The trial court deemed the above statement admissible, opining that

[t]he statement at issue came on the heels of [Williams] denying
his involvement in the homicide, and it was admitted to
demonstrate the natural progression of the investigation and
explain how the detectives’ interview with [Williams] concluded.
Had it not been admitted, the jury would have been left with
even more questions about what had transpired between the
detectives and [Williams] during the interview. There would be
virtually no context to explain why the interview ended after
[Williams] had denied guilt by saying, “That’s not me. Check me
out” after he was told that he was charged with a homicide….

Trial Court Opinion, 1/19/16, at 17.

- 12 -
J-A29031-16

However, upon review, the trial court’s view that the probative value

outweighed the potential prejudice is not supported in the record. Police

obtained this statement after Williams’s arrest, and presumably at the

conclusion of its investigation. When read in context, it is clear that

Williams’s final statement is a re-invocation of his constitutional privilege

against self-incrimination. Further, the statement could only be interpreted

as Williams’s recognition that video surveillance footage would incriminate

him. The evidence was not de minimis, or cumulative of other, properly

admitted evidence. See Poplawski, 130 A.3d at 716. Finally, the

Commonwealth has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the

evidence did not contribute to the verdict. See Commonwealth v. Noel,

104 A.3d 1156, 1172 (Pa. 2014) (stating that “the judgment of sentence

will be affirmed in spite of the error only where the reviewing court

concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the

verdict.”).

Here, there was no eyewitness to the shooting. Wright testified that

earlier that day, she saw that J-Zombie and Judd also possessed firearms.

N.T., 11/18-20/14, at 20-21, 230. Wright additionally testified that she did

not see Williams with a firearm as he approached her front door, or when he

was talking to Lyman prior to the shooting. Id. at 232. Lane testified that

immediately after the shooting, she saw only Lyman in the hallway outside

of her apartment. N.T., 11/20-21/14, at 181. Lane further stated that she

- 13 -
J-A29031-16

did not see Williams inside of the apartment building or in the hallway prior

to the shooting. Id. at 171. Although the Commonwealth presented

circumstantial evidence of Williams’s guilt, we cannot conclude, beyond a

reasonable doubt that the admission of Williams’s statement did not

contribute to the verdict. See Noel, 104 A.3d at 1172. Because we cannot

conclude that the error in admitting Williams’s statement was harmless, we

are constrained to vacate the judgment of sentence, and remand for a new

trial.

Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for a new trial.

Superior Court jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/19/2017

- 14 -
 Circulated 12/27/2016 04:03 PM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY.
PENNSYLVANIA

COivH,/!ONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANLA., CR!M!NAL D!V!StON

vs. CC No.: 2013-12281
2014-14922

RA YSHAWN WILLIAMS,

Defendant.

OPINIO_N

This is a direct appeal from the judgment of sentence entered on February 25,

?O 15. follnvv1ng the Defendant's convictions for First Degree Murder and th?in~J a Person

Not to Possc~.;s or Use a Firearm Tflt':l Oefenciant was originally charged at the

information filed at CC# 2013-1228 l with Criminal Homicide ( 18 Pa.C. S.A. 2501 (a)) and

Person i'Jot to Possess, Use a Firearm ( 18 Pa.C.S . .A.. 6 i 05(a)( 1 )). The Person Not to

f:.)ossess charge was severed. at lhe Defenclc.rnt's request, prior to trial and proceeded

forward at CCH 2014-14922 The Horrucide charqe was tried to a jury betvveen

Novernt . er 18, 2014 and November :?O, 2014, ,vith a non-jury trial occurring

simultaneously on the severed Person not to Possess or Use a Firearm charge. On

November 25, 2014, the jury convicted the Defendant of First Degree Murder, and this

court rouno the Defendant guilty of tt1e firearm offense. (Jury Trial Transcript

'
I, t 1ercinaiter "Tf
I ") , \;' 01un1e
' · '11
, , N oven1oer
-· '-·~' . .::.~014 , p;J.· 12"'o, 1'"))
')r· ,..-:,d . 0.,n, c::: eoruary
' 2. 5,

;?O 15, the Defendant was sentencecJ to lif;:; imprisonment without parole on the murder

charge at CC# 2013-12281, and he received a concurrent sentence of five (5) to ten

'! ::
 ( 10) years of incarceration for being a Person Not to Possess at CC# 2014-14922. On

February 25, 2015. the Defendant filed a Post-Ssntonca Motion. which was denied on

February 27, 2015. This timely appeal touowed.

On October 26, 2015, the Defendant filed his Concise Statement of Errors to be
1
Complained of on Appeal ("Concise Statement"), raising the following seven (7) issues

for review:

I. The trial court erred in denying ~Ar. Williams' Motion to Suppress a
statement he made to police/detectives during a custodial
interrogation on .t\ugust 5, 2013. Following his arrest, Mr. Williams
invoked his Miranda rights and declined to speak to detectives
without an attorney present. Shortly thereafter Mr. '1\/illiams
expressed confusion over n-ie nature of his charges, at which point
a detective referenced video survenlance footage that captured the
incident. ,~.! that point, Mr. Wiiliams allegedly stated, "That's it. I'm
done talking." In Hie Omnibus Pretriaf Motion, trial counsel
specifically asserted that this statement was obtained in violation of
Mr. Williams right to remain silent as proviced by the 51t1 and s1n
a.nendments of the United States Constitution and Article I §9 of
tTio PennsytvaniA Consntunon and shoufci therefor(~ be
suoprcssco. Apart from lhe Assistant District Attorney's assertions
to the contrary, the Ccrnmonwealtn failed to present any evidence
to prove that this statement was constitutionally obtained. Thus,
tt,e Commonwealth tailed to meet its burden and the statement at
issue should have been suppressed

11. Had the Commonwealth presented evidence at the suppression
hearing bearing on the constitutionality of Mr. Wifliams' statement
(see issue "I"), the trial court nonetheless erred in denying Mr.
\Niliiams' Motion to Suppress this statement. Mr. Williams initially
invoked his Miranda rights foilowing his arrest on August 5, 2013,
and declined to speak with ofticers/detcctlves. Since detectives
continued to question Mi. Williams concerning a topic that was
likely to elicit an incriminating response, the statement at issue was

I
The Defendant received three (J) extensions of time to fiie his Concise Statement
because he was awaiting transcripts.
 obtained in violation of Mr. Wllliarns' rights under the 5th and 61h
amendments or the United States Constitution and Article l, Section
I 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Ill. Even if suppression was not warranted, the trial court abused its
discretion by allowing Mr. Wiiiiarns' statement to detectives, 'That's
it, I'm done talking." Under Pa.R.E. 403, the probative value of this
evidence was outvveighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Mr.
Williams. In ma! in
'-·· -· ~,
I .
'1'2
I 11 I .»
;...,a I 'V·'"''' y
! I :::( I 'of{,:
,-.!l
v ':~o ~ f.'.J 0-~
l \ I~- C..t ..,l, ,·1···
I
f~
I • .,,
nt t·1.I ) .;
I I! 19
11·1;__ , ! ,,' ··

between Ricky and three (3) men known as "Tay Tay," "Zombie," and "Judd." (TT 1, pp.

i ,H, 148-49, 188, 190-91, 199). Ricky, Tay Tay, Zombie, and Judd were in the hallway

out;icie cf Ms. VVright's apartment at around 4 p.m. that day, and they wf::re overheard

hnving ,1 loud verbal altercation about "someone's bmtl1e;· getting robbed." (TT 1, pp.

a· 1
],;U, I
'tit,
J • ---
]/j(j, gn "' '1(.
1.~-..1-::;1,t: ""' ,-,,
. ..IU,c'.1, 1 2~/n "7A\,
.. c:.-1'-t/, I 1.,,,,,
\'-Ju,y T---1
11la1 ·,·.-----·
l1a11:,C1ip11 '
VU.te.\') 1u1··-1- ")
Vol r.:,pp. ',·n
1::Jo-

66). Tay Tay and Judd subsequently went into the apartment of their friend "Nay Nay"

(N3twauna Lane), whlte Hicky and Zombie walked up the street to Zombie's house. (TT

1, pp 144·45, 190, 203-05, 223, 225, 233). Ricky had returned to the apartment he

sh,.r2d with Ms. Wright shortly before the Defendant started banging on the apartment

door 1.., -r·r1 , p. -1 'HJ
,,. .• _,, . .,-. ·34 •
?1·~ 238) .
I Ms. Wright heard Ricky explain to the Defendant that he did not have a problem

I with Tay Tay or Judd, and he told the Defendant that "sornothinq happened earlier with

Zombie," Ricky's friend (TT 1, pp. 148 ·50, 190. 222, 267). Ms. Wright was preparing

to walk out into the hallway with Ricky and tr,e Defendant, but, as she looked outside of

her door, she saw Tay Tay and Judd standing with the Defendant. (TT 1, pp. 149-50,

152-53, 178, 229-30, 235). Ms. Wright also saw Nay Nay (Ms. Lane) standing in the

hallway listening to the conversation. (TT 1, pp. 149, 152, 178, 229, 235). Ms. Wright

knew that Ms. Lane was her next-door neighbor, but she did not know her personally.

(TT 1. pp. 145, 192, 195).

tv1s. Wright returned to h,2r apartment and shut the door. However, she then

decided to take her daughter across ti·ie street to Ms. Wright's mother's house because

she had a "funny" feeling about the situation and feit uncomfortable. (TT 1, pp. 150,

")' v. q,r)..,
O_.311... ,.._f
,,. men
, ,, (H' , h.:.:·r· ''.!'·"\/~., out
. - (n· 1 , r·,n
t-"r-·· 1 -,")'J).r::.:i
• .._. , ·, -,,,,.~)>) D,·,·
, r·kv~, '111L·,
, •::... victim
. ., 1.
,.,.,
tvc1:·
. _ .:::•·-i·.--,-
.~'-'-
-.J·:
,:. ,1
.. io:J

JudcJ as Ms. Wright left the building witn her daughter. Ms. Wright told Hicxy to go back

into their apartment because he did not "have anything to do with what happened"

earlier in the day witn Zombie. (TT 1, pp. 153-54, 209). Despite Ms. Wright's request,

n,cky did not go back into tr1Ei apartment. (TT ·1, p. 154) .

.,
i
I.. On her ·Nay out of the building, Ms. Wright saw a friend who agreed to walk her

daughter across the stroe! to Ms. Wright's mother's house. (TI 1, p. 153). Ms. Vvright

stopped in tl1e parking lot in front of the building and spoke with a woman named

Brittany, who also had just exited the building. (TT 1, pp. 154-57, 179, 247). As they

I.
. were tatking in the parking lot, the women saw Tay Tay and Judd leave the building, get

into a vehicle that had just pulled up, and drive avvay. (TT 1, pp. 155-56); (TT 2, p. 182).

At this point, Ms. Wright decided to move her vehicle from the front to the back of the

building because she was worried about something happening to her car. (TT 1, pp.

156-5/, 241-42).

rv1s. Wright was V':afking back towards tr;e t)iJilcLng aftei moving her car when

she saw the Defendant run past her and heard two (2) girls scream at the sight of him.

(TT 1. pp. 157-58, 185). fv1s. Wright heard the Defendant ye!I to the two gir!s, "homeys,

i'r:1
.
not going to snoot you. ., 1·---·
I 1
· 1 • pp .. t :::i-~...,-::i~
,..0
•.
18- o, ,:-:t1c
. . ,_,.\ 1. Tl
• ,1e t\NO
,
1,2) girls appeared

frightened and were rnoving out of the Defendant's way. (TT 1, p. i58). Ms. \//right

th
Sd'.\/ ~; al· r tf·.. 1e
n ,r ··,·
!.JS,t;'.H.J..: -•-,,1t
... , ·\.I(.~(,,
,··i·- ··a··· -11y:11v·=-a d- ..,,
u,ctl__. ,K'~t.tlt
-· , .. :~
lll
1-.j-
;1,0
·'-'''
!l~llt
h -
1,dnu -' ~ d
or1J . g vvnn
runnin .., .n1s

hcodie pulied up a "litHe bit over his face." err 1, pp. 158-59, 182, H34-85, 187-88). She

was able to recognize the Defendant because his hoocie was falling off of his face as

he was running. (TT I, pp. 159, 185).

!V1s. Wri;Jht did not hear or see the actual st,ooting take place because she ,;,;as

moving her vehicle: and the music in her car nad been playing at a loucl volume. (TT 1,
 p. 160). However, as the Defendant ran past her with the gun, Ms. \Nright heard her

mother screaming at her to get inside of the building because a sheeting had just

occurred (TT 1, p. 160). At this point, everything "clicked," and Ms. 'Wright reared !hat

something had happened to Ricl,y. (TT 1, p. 160}. She ran back into her apartment

I »JI
.
building and saw Ricky lying on the floor near Ms. Lane's door, unresponsive. (TT 1,

pp. 160-61, 187). Paramedics eventually arrived and transported Ricky to Presbyterian

Hospital (TT 1, pp. 162-63). While at the hospital with Ricky's family, Ms. Wright

I .
. learned that Ricky had died after sustaining multipk~ gunshot wounds to his trunk and

forearm. (TI 1, pp. 51-62, i63).

\;\lili!e stil1 at 1r·1e hospital, Ms Wright spoke with Detective Harry Lutton and told
f!:::~
tJ
ED r1irn thal a person named Hay Ray shot Hicky. (TT ·1, pp. 164-65, 269, 295). She

~ aJreed to accompany the detectives to police headquarters in order to identify the
i,
she conf:rmerJ to the officers that she wou:c b,'? able to identify Hay Fiay if she saw his

face again. (TT 1, pp. 165, 170, 1 72, 295). Ms. Wright was shown a binder fillecl v11it11

photographs and was asked 1f she recognized the shooter in any of the pictures. (TT 1,

pp. 166-67, 170, 297) While lookinq at the pictures in the book, she recognized the

Defendant's face and identified him as the shooter. (TT 1 pp 167 171 ?5,1·t
) ' 1 I - I
?t::A
V •1
.._ I
?OR.
•- .._, ..,,J

300). The Defendant was appreriended five (5) days later, after initiaily attempting to

fiee from tile officers who were executing his arrest warrant. (TI 2), pp. 78, 81-84, 86,

88).
 I. IL

l\. This court did not abuse Its discretion In admitting the Defendant'a
statements into evidence because they were Iawtully obtained and their
probative value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
under Pa. R. E. 403.

The Defendant's first three (3) allegations of error seek to attack the admission of

statements that he rnade after he was taken into custody. The Defendant's first

contention-· that the Commonwealth failed to present any evidence to prove that his

statements were constitutionally obtained -· should be deemed waived on appeal.

(Concise Sta!t)ment, pp. 3-4).

The Defendant ii!ed a motion on April 2, 2014 seeking, arnonq other things, to

suppre as statements he rnaco to detectives on Auqust S, ?01 J, subsequent to his

arrest. (Pretrial Motion, filed on 4/2/14, pp. 10-12). In his motion, the Defendant stated

Piat, after he was arrested. he invoked his Mirende rights and "declined lo speak with

officers without an attorney present." (kL at 1 O). However, in the motion, !he Oefenclan!

immediately conceded lhc1t he rein1tiated the conversation with the detectives. {Id. at

1 O) Wlien the Def0ndant was informed that he was going to be charged with a

homicide. he remarked that he was Just a cJrug dealer and that he did not do that kind of

Uw1g. (id ) The detectives then asked the Defendant about the surveillance system at

the apartment buitding, at which point the Defendant said, "That's it. I'm done talkinq."

(LdJ
;·.·:,;
,._.-,:
•:-:-.'i:
l,;'}

',v"
 On April 15, 2014, argument was held on the motion. Neither party ever

indicated an intention, desire or n..;ed to present testimony or anything ether than !cga!

argument on the issue of whether tile Defendant's statements were admissible. (Pretrial

Motion ~h-=:aring, 4/15/14, pp. 4-12). In support of the Commonwealth's argument, the

Ass.stan: District Attorney provided the following recitation of what transpired on the day

tr.··.· of the Defendant's arrest:
1/l
WJ
[The Defendant] was informed of his Miranda rights, as it were. He
expressed the desire not to talk with the detectives They got up to leave
and 11e said, "Can I ask you a question?" They said, "Okay." And he says,
"What is this about?" So they explained, "You are being ctiarged with a
homicide," at which point he says, "I'm not into that, I'm a drug dealer.
Look at my record." (The detectives] said, "What about the surveillance
video?" That's when [the Defendant] says again, "That's it, I'm done
talking."

(Pielri.cil fv1oticn Hearing, 4i15/14, p. 6).

Hie Oefen<1c1nt never objected to or otherwise disputed the factual accuracy of

tr,e ConHnonwe,,!ih':, position as to his statements or how they were obtained, and it

;/,.::1'.j clear that the .siar·ties vvere in ngr•::e1T18nt as to the c.rcumstancas surroundinn ~ tt~e

interview (Pretrial Motion Hearing, 4/15/14, pp. 5·7). The Defendant conceded that he

r9initiatecf c:onversation vvith the detectives . so the sole issue at the hearing was

whethei the jury shouid hear the statement, "That's it, I'm done talking." (Pretrial Motion

Hearing, 4/15/14, pp. 5-7). The parties agreed, at least implicitly, that an evidentiary

hearing was unnecessary since neither party disputed the facts surrounding the

Dcfondan!'s statements. The Defendant never requested an opportunity to question the

detectives as to how his statements were obta.ned, and he never raised an objection as

to U1e absence of testimony on the issue. Although the Defendant had two (2) different

, '
'
 attorneys during the course cf his representation, neither one - Mr. Aaron Sontz nor Ms.

Carrie Allman -- ever took issue with the fact that only argument was prosontsd in

support of the motion "It is axiomatic that only issues raised by specific objection in the

trial court may be addressed on appeal." Commonweajth v. _Wi!lis, 552 A2d 682, 690

(Pa. Super. 1988). Given the Defendant's lack of a specific objection before this court

on this issue, the Defendant's rirsl issue should be deemed waived.
I-
.

The Defendant's second allegation of error is that this court erred by denying his

motion to suppress the statement "That is. I'm done talking," because the statement

"was obtained in vioiation of his constitutional rights.'' (Concise Statement, p. 4 ). This

contention is without merit. It is weu-estabfished that an appellate court's "standard of

review in a.ddrr:~ssing a challenge to a trial court's clenial of a suppression motion is

limited to determining whether the tactual iindings are supported by the record and

·./\.ihsthcr the !e~Jdl conclusions drawn from those facts are correct." Ccmn1on_'-/./CC1f_ttt_Y:

Q~J~:'.'.3CJ_;?, SGO A 2cJ 102, 112 (Pa. 200<1} (citation omitted). "Where the record supports

ihe factu,~l findings of the iria! court, [the revievving court is} bound bv those facts and

may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error." Commomvealt.r1

v vvells. 916 A2d 1192, 1194-95 (Pa. Super. 2007).

A.s an initial matter, the Defendant's characterization of how the events transpired

is inaccurate and misleading. The Defendant contends that the statement a! issue was

unlc1wful!y obtained because, alter he "initially u.vokec his l'viiranda riqhts." the

!2
I
.
~
"detectives continued to question" him ''concerning a topic that was likely to elicit an

incriminating response.~ (Concise Statement. p. 4). However. this case docs not

involve a scenario where the Defendant invoked his Miranda rights but was

nevenheless hounded by detectives to abandon riis rigr1ts and talk. To the contrary, tna

detectives in tnis case completely ceased all questioning after the Defendant expressed

his initial desire not to speak with them, and they never attempted to pressure him into

talking after his initial invocation. The detectives immediately halted the conversation

and wore preparing to leave the interview room when the Defendant stopped them and

inquired whether Ile could ask them a question. (Pretrial Motion Hearing, 4/15/14, pp.

5 6) The DefE-Jndant asked, "What is this about," and the detectives explained that he

was being charged with a homicide. (Let at 6). The Defendant then stated "I'm not into

that, I'm a diug dealer. Look a! rny record." (ld. at 4-6). The detectives followed up his

assertion with ihe question, "what about the surveillance video." It was at this point that

the Defendant saicl "That's it l'rn done talkinq." (!.s:L at 6).

"[/'.\] suppression court reviewing a. statement made after thi3 defendant's initial

invocation of the right to remain silent must recognize as pivotal Hie purpose tor whicn

t11e renc~wed interrogation was conducted and the circumstances under which it

occurred "Common,··:calth v. Harris. 972 A.2d 1196, 1203(Pa. Super. 2009).

Specifically,

judicial inquiry in each instance should focus on the circumstances
attending the defendant's invocation of his[] right to silence, as well as the
circumstances attending any further attempt at questioning. Hence, the
test should ask wbetber the ottici«! purpose of resurning quastioning was
00
lM
to entice the arrestee to abandon his right to remain silent, or simply to
find out whether he or she had a change of mind. Only then can it be
concluded whether, in faci, th..-: defendant's ,;right to cut off quostionino"
was "scrupulously honored."

I. . H~rris, supra. at 1203 (quoting Commonw~_?lth v. Her..£Y, 599 A.2d 1321, 1325 (Pa .

Super. 1991 )) (emphasis added). Thus, the critical inquiry in these situations is

"whether the police fully respected [the defendant'sJ right to remain silent. or whether

[H1e defendant] later waived that right." .ti.?.I!..i.~, supra, at 1204.

m
I
It is clear that the Defendant's statement 'Tm done talking" was not the product of

any police-initiated questioning. His statement was !he direct product of his own,

voluntary, un-cocrced. and unprompted decision to reinit,ate conversation v,;ith tile

detectives. The "law is vve1!-sr:~ttl(sd that a detcncant who requests counsel at any time

during a custodial interview 'is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities untii

counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further

cornmunicetiott, exchanges, or corwersetions with the potice." Commorw,;er;!th v.

f_Q.~_fl._C~t,. 903 A2d i 139, 1150 (Pa. 2006) (quoting !;_9w9_.!:Q~ .. Y.c_!.\[i?.QD?, 45·1 U.S. 477,

The detectives "scrupulously nonorec" his initial invocation of his right to rema.n

silent. In fact. they cut off all questioning and were wa:king out of the room It was only

after the detectives began exiting !he room that the Defendant himself stopped them.

Tno circumstances surrounding the interaction demonstrate that ihe "orticial purpose"
~
Mi
the Defendant "had a change of miner about speaking with them about !he incident after

he reinitiated conversation. After his iniiial invocation of ltAitc:1nda, the Delcndant

expressed his desire to reengage the detectives and discuss the circumstances

surrounding his arrest His "I'm done talfJl\/1'-"'1...,,•~ ...... c- '""'/'H,QU!
it~r•\tl merit
\11·11i.,

At the suppression hearing held on June 8, 20i 4, it was established that Ms.

Vvright spoke with Oeiective Lutton at the hospital and agreed to accompany Detective

Luttc,n and h.s partner to the homicide office This occurred less than two (2) hours

after her boyfriend was murdered. (Suppression Hearing Transcript ("ST"), 6/8/14, pp.
 4·5). As far as the police . .vere concerned, the shooter was still armed and on the

loose. and the officers were attempting to locate a suspect (ST, pp. 8, 42). vVhen they

arrived at the homicide office, Ms. Wri9ht told the detectives that the shooter was

someone whom she only knew as "Ray Ray." (ST, pp. 7, 17, 19, 29, 41-42). She did

not know nay Ray's first or last name, but she told the detectives that she had known

him for a "couple [of) years" and knew that he was from the Homewood area where she

was from (ST, pp. 7-8, 17, 19, 42). Ms. Wright said that she would "definitely" be able

to identify the person she knew as "Ray Ray" if she saw his face again, and she never

qave any inclication that sno did not know who the shooter was. (ST, pp. 17, 41 ).

since Ms. \/fright atre ady knew the Oefen,jant, tr,e detectives provided her witr1 a

b!l,chor that containecl 132 photographs. (ST, p. 14). The spine of the binder was

captioned "Zone 5 Gang Book." and each page in the book contained eight (8) pictures

ont n~r,·i
...:_...(.l\,.,11 "'!·,.,,..,
•.)I..~'._., re:-,
\'._J nn
>r''f-'' "0 1-· ,q.g I Ii •,•·~ ?4\I" The oicture s
·-~···•• ,._.._..t._. lPPJ-f'.l_. orcaniz ed bi· neionborno
~~j._...,14-·v,._.. .'t 1-..,.l~-J~\_,,jj1•._1UL.i ..-..d

a11ci susp•::}c!ed \}-:lfl0 affiliations Di.splayed underneath each of the r.•ictures was the

11;:une of the incliv1ciua1 shown. (ST, pp. 13. 24-28, .37) Since the \Jetectives Jid not

know who ··Hay Hay" was at that time, they hao no idea if the Defendant's picture would

even be contained in the book (ST, p. 38).

Detective Lutton instructed ~v1s. Wright to take her time and look through every

single picture in the book. (ST, pp. 7-8, 25, 31 ). Although Ms. Wright indicated that the

Defendant was from Hornewoco, Detective Lutton told her not to focus 011 particu'ar
 areas because it was possible that the Defendant could have rnoved. (ST. pp. 8, 25).

Detective Lutton was present the entire time that Ms. Wright locked through the pictures

in the binder. He was confident, based on his observations of her as she looked

through the binder. that Ms. Wright was only looking at the faces of the individuals and

not rei'!ding their names. (ST. pp. 9, 13, 18, 3 f-34). He saw Ms. Wright scrolling her

finger across the faces of the individuals, and he saw that she did not rush through the

photographs. (ST, pp. 9, 12, 18-19, 31 · 33).

Before identifying the Oefenclant, Ms. Wright came across the photo of a man

whom she idcint1t1od as Tay Tay, one of the individuals that was present in tile

acartmcnt
I • '·~:..
(_;. ~ {,L I •
h•1il>-•j'
j
.·l"
I LJ I • ~ ...... _Y
h~sfuro
,,.J - f • ......
tr,: :>--
l •• c;hnnhng
....
I I"•' ~ •• I I ••
Q('Ct •(rPd
..... ..... • -..~- •
1\1S-f ,
oo
,. .. ,-· '
7I , 111)
I...J •

the Defendant's face in a photo and identified him as the shooter. (ST, pp. 10- 12, 29).

,1·1e book containecl only one ( 1) photograph of the Defendant, and Ms. Wright identified

the Ot"'!f(~nclant from that photo without any hesitation or uncertainty. (ST, pp. 11-13).

The Defendant's photograph was located approximately two-thirds (2/3) of the way

th1ou9i1 the book, on the t)acksid£~ of the pagf1 that contained Tay Tay's picture (ST, p

i 11· lt should be noted that Det,=;ctive Lutton instrucled Ms. VVriaht
~ to continue lookmo~

through tne rest of the book, even after Ms Wright identified the Defendant from his

photo (ST. p 12)

23
 Under the totality of the circumstances, the fact that the pictures were organized

by gang affiliation and had the names displayed underneath them did not render the

identification process unduiy suggestive in this case because Ms. Wiight already knew

that u·ie Defendant was the shooter. Further, the procedure employed was not

de sioned
'-"
to "empl1asize" or single out" any particutar suspect. See ---··---·---··-····-···
Commonwealth-··----··v .

Q.~'L!.;:;, ·1 7 A .3d 390, 394 (Pa. Super. 20 t I) ("Suggestiveness arises whan the police

employ an identification procedure tha: emphasizes or singles-out a suspect.").

Moreover, the fact that the names were displayed underneath tr1e pictures was not

problematic in this scenario because Ms. Wright did not know the Defendant's real

name.

i+ovve ver. even assuming for the sake of arqurncnt that tr1e procedure was

unduly suggestive. the totality of the circumstances show that it was not "so

2009) (noting that "suggestiveness alone does no! warrant excrus.on"). Courts routinely

hove explained that "tile central inquiry is whether. under the totality of the

circumstances, the identification was reliable." ~!?J!..L~. supra, at 394 (quoting fl,1.9v2.

suoie, at 976); f!'..1ar!_§Or_1__yJ1rathwaiL~. 432 U.S. 98, 1 ·14 (1977) ("reliability is the linchpin

111 clf3teimining the admissibility of identification testimony")
 As noted, this is not a situation where Ms. Wright only caught a brief glimpse of a

stranqer with whom she had no prior familiarity. Ms. \/I/right S3'N tho Dotendant

approaching her apartment building through her front window; she saw him and had a

conversation with him as he stood in front of her door; she passed him in the hallway as

she left t11e bui!ding with her daughter; she saw him running away from the building after

the shooting, holding a gun. Ms. Wright had ample opportunity to observe the

Defendant. Wr1en she first saw him, Ms. Wright immediately recognized the Defendant

as someone she knew from the Homewood area where she had grown up. Although

Ms. Wriaht knew that the Defendant was from a particular area, she looked at ever;

~;1nq!e pictuu-? in the book anci di(J not specificalty focus ht?r attention on any particular

t)elit~\..,eCJ ··r:?ay r~ay11 beiongcd to any particular gang, so the tact that tho book was

orqaniz ed by ganrJ affiliations is also of no consequence.

F urt/tf;rinorc ~ Octective Lutton was present the entire time rv1s Wright was ~JC)in9

u1rcugr1 the binder. and it '/'10.s clear to him that she 'l/3S fook:ng at tr·;e faces of tr1e

ind1viduais, and not t1·1eil' names. Common sense supports the detective's obsorvations

since Ms. Wright did not know the Defendant's real name. Significantly, Ms. \Vright told

the cJ(~tectives that she would "definitely" be able to identify the Defendant if she sa 11 his 1

fc1cr? acpin, and sh£-1 imrncdiatcly picked out the Defendant's pit.;ture upon seeing it. Ms.

\,'\'right 1dcnt:f1cd the Defendant as the shooter just hours after the incident occurred.

and she was confident in her identification.

·-··-·-:
L_.,
25
 Accordingfy, Ms. Wright's identification was reliable under the circumstances.

In this court's estimation, the ider.tificatior. procedure uti!i2od in this case is similar to lhG

use of a yo.1rboo!\, which contains photos, names and categorizing information such as

grade in school. Courts have upheld the use of yearbooks in identifying perpetrators.

See e.g., Haun v. State, 451 Ne.2d 1072, 1075-76 (Ind. 1983); State_1Lll:!.f!s.Y, 453

So.2d 1234, 1;237-39 (La. App. 1. Cir. 1984); !,lnit~~L~~?.l~.$_y_,_rj_§D.!9?.Q,681 F.2d 1127,

1132-33 (9th Cir. 1982); Lit1L~LY.:. . .9l?le, 475 Ne.2d 677, 681-82 (Ind. 1985); Lo__.rg

Matthews., 23 A3d 250, 259 (Md. App. 2011 ).

Because the pretrial identification was reliable, its admission a! trial did not

violate the Defendant's due process rights. P:,dditionally, because Ms. Wright's pretrial

v10!::ito 1110 Defondant's due process rights. To that end, the court notes that, before Ms.

VVnght officia!ly ide11!disd the Df?fendant as "Ray nay" al !rial, she tt,s!if:cd that she

irnrnediate!y recognized him when she opened her door. and that the Defendant also

,-ecogni?ed har and looked shocked to see her. (TT 1, pp. 146-48, 156) Ms. 'vVright t-iacJ

opcnco her door ·-· asking him why he was banging on her door and wnv he was there,

questions to which ho responded, and then observ1r\J hirn a9ain as she walked past him

in the hal:way on ner way out of the buiicJing. (TT 1, pp. 146-48, 152-53)
 On a final note, the Defendant's contention that the Commonwealth failed to

present the testimony of Ms. Wright at the suppression hearing to demonstrate the

reliability of the identification should be rejected outright and deemed waived. (Concise

Statement, p. 4). During the suppression hearing, defense counsel dismissed the need

to have f1,,1s. Wright testify and stated that the "suppression motion is regarding the

procedural aspects of the identification" and that he was "not so much concerned about

the fact that she identified my ctient" (ST, p. 16) (emphasis added). Counsel explained

that his motion was only challenging the procedural aspects of the identification

procedure that was employed, and he stated that "regarding facts such as how long this

witness had the opportunity to observe the Defendant, tba: goes beyond the procedural

aspects. That goes to the weight and credibility of her identification," which lie 11as no!
1

ch£iiienging (ST, p 16). Accordingly, the Defendant's contentions that this court erred

in nor having testimony by the witness a! the suppression hearing are meritle ss. and this

court did not err 11, df?nying the motion to suppress her pretrial and in-court i(jentification.

c: . . I'his court did not abuse its discretion by afiov:.dng Detecti\le Hal ::3(:dirt tc}
impeach Natwauna Lane with statements she made to him days before
trial because the probative value 01 her prior inccnsistent statement w;.;.s
not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Pa. R. E. 403.

The Defendant argues that this court abused its discretion by admitting

Natwauna i.anes prior inconsistent statement because the statement was unfairly

prejudicial under Pa. R.E. 403. (Concise Statement, p. 5). As noted earlier, a trial

court's evidentiary rulings "will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion." Einhorn,

....., ·7
.C: I
 supra, at 967. "The trial court abuses its discretion if it misapplies !he law or [rules) in a

manner lacking reason." Id. at 967 (internal quotations omilled). Pursuant Io Pa. R. E
403. "[o]thervvise relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed

by its potential for prejudice." Antidormi, supra, at 750. However, "[e lvidence .'Vill not be
1

prohibited merely because it is harmlul to the defendant." Let at 750. Indeed, the court

is not "required to sanitize the trial to eliminate all unpleasant facts from the jury's

consideration where those facts are relevant to the issues at hand . . " "[E]xclusion is

limited to evidence so prejudicial that it would inflame the jury to make a decision based

upon something other than the legal propositions relevant to tile case." ld at 750
0

(quoting Cornmonwealth v. Owens, 929 A2d 1187, 1191 (Pa. Super. 2007)).

1\s the Dd..=inc!ant acxnu.,;ledges, the centra, issue at trial concemco the identity

of the shooter Two (:::') cl,"lys rwfore Natv.;auna ("Nay Nay") Lane testified at trial. she

rnet wi!h Detective Bolin and toid him that she saw the Defendant on the clay of trie

shooting talking to the victim in the hallway of the apartment building. (TT 2, p. 260).

Trus st::1te!neni. was made verbally to the detective and was not recorded in any iashion.

(TT 2, pp. 260, 269· 70). In lig1"1t of the inforrnafon that ,v'\s. Lane provided to th:.-J

detective trnrneoiately before trial, the Commonwealth chose to call ht"?r as a witness.

The Commonwealth had ever; right to expect that Ms. Lane would testify consistently

with the statement she had made just days earlier. (TI 2, pp. 144, 203, 208-09, 215,
1.::;
G~ 221 ). However. when Ms. Lane took the stand and testified, she- insisted that she did

not see the Def end ant in the apartment building on the day of the shooting. (TT 2, pp.

170-72, 1s,1.1i35, ~'40, 242, 247). ivls. Lane was then confronted with the prior
; . .;=

28
 statement made to Detective Bolin during her testimony, and she denied making it. (Tf

2, pp. 202, 237-242).

"The general rule is that a prior inconsistent statement of a declarant is

aomissible to impeach the dsclarant." Commonweal!h v_,_'2_rad~. 507 A.2d 66, 68 (Pa.

I ..
,;<
1986). Consistent with the rules of evidence, Ms. Lane's statement was admitted for

the sole purpose of impeachment because it did not meet the criteria for admission as

substantive evidence under Pa. R.E. 803. 1. The court a!!owed Detective Bolin to testify

about the conversation he had with Ms. Lane mere days before she testifiecJ because

her statement was materially inconsistent with her triai testimony. (TT 2, pp 260, 269-

Contrary . to the Defendant's argument, the probative value of Ms. Lane's ori
'
or

incnns;stent statement was not ourwciohec by the dancer of unfair pre Judice The

mconsistcncv related to a key issue at trial, namely identification. Ms. Lane's testimony

at trial directlv contradicted the testimony of 1\--1s. \t./right, who testified that the Defendant

was present in the tlalh,vay, as was Ms. Lane. It was vital for the jury to assess the

crE'C1itJi!ity of the two (2) women in order to resolve the issue of identification. Ms.

Lane's statement to Detective Bolin provided the jury with a proper context in which to

11-1eigh her testimony and determine whether she testified credibly at trial. Althouqh the

0, ereru
i d ant argues fh
il .a \ "t'nere was a qrcat t risk
. I ·•.
mar,l ' '!
cespue ·
a cautionary ·
instruction, the

;,,r-,.1
jl...JIJ would.I.._.. consider 1\;]S
J.AI .v,\,...1 ,., · ans's
I1..-1..,.,,..,, 8i'P 1'J':,r-J
· •-....:::,"-"' st::J....T.0. fn'"('IS
V ...._.. !, •,, :cir..;
,. .......,, substant.vc evidence or' n.l,
.._ ' . Ill'~ ... VIV J\_,(; i\/1!,
.
!
.
.
Williams' guilt," this argument relies on notl1ing but mere speculation. (Concise

Statement, p. 5). The Cornn1onweailh never attempted lo suggest that this statement

should be considcr"~d as the truth, and the Jury was instructed multiple times that it must

not consider her statement for anylhing other than credibility purposes. Such cautionary

instructions are routinely given, and there is no indication that jurors ignore them.

Indeed, at the time that the prior inconsistent statement was admitted, this court

strongly cautioned the jury that it may only consider the statement to assess the

credibility of the witness. (TT 2, p. 260). Specifically, the court provided the following

instruction:

Ladies anci gentlemen of the Jury, you should be aware tha: this evidence
is not to be ccn~:;ic.iered t)y you for nh':: truth of the matter. fl So it's not fur
n-je trutn of wr.etner or not f\Jay r"Juy actually saw the defendant in the
hcii:wdy ltiis testimony can only be considered by you as to th,1 c(edibi!ity
r,f Ms I ;c>()C, ft'J That is the only '1''3· '1' Ihat
.._,, •-· ·--.,· ~· . !,u .. vo: I can consider
._., ~ ._, ;I [] C:o '''"U
,. , J~
'I' j ,,_,. •;;)
.. ~...._ , . ..J, ,.-1 I . ...._,,

must fo!lDV/ these instructions. 1\s J rcld you eartior, I am the judge ::!ii"n(i;1nt ,,vas the shooter She irnrnedialeiy told n1e detf:c!ives that Ricky was
Li
1,iHed by a man that she only knew as "Ray Ray", and she voluntarily agreed to

34
, .....
!'•,·:

f
,,.)
·:J
 go to the police station so that she could assist in the investigation. (TI 1, pp.

165, 170, 172. 269. 295). Ms. Wright immediately picked out !he Defendant's

face after vievving ovet a hundred pictures, all within a fm,v hours after the

shooting occurred. (TT 1, pp. 164-67, 170-71, 218, 226, 269, 295, 301).

The court notes that Ms. VVrigr1t's testimony was not weakened by Ms.

Lane's testimony at trial. Ms. Lane testified that she was friends 1,vith Tay Tay

and Judd, and she corroborated Ms. Wright's account that there had been an

incident in the hallway around 4:00 p.m. on the day of the shooting that involved

Tay Tay, Judd, Zombie, and Ricky. (TT 2. pp. 155-68). The incident involved

?orE•twesn n-,Ei Defendant, F1icky. Tay Tay, and Judd. (TT 1, pp. i S2-53, 17B. 181,

229-30, ?:35, 24:3, 261 ).

The court also notes that another Commonwealth witness, Stf.?phen

o,o,ver. Jent CiE:d:t:11l;ty to Ms. Wiight's te stirnony that tho Defendant ran out of the

t)uilciinD \,\lith rus shirt pulled over his head. Mr. Brewer was in the parking lot at

me time of the shooting, and he testified lha1 he sav-: someone ffeeing from the
r~
tGi building with "something white pulled over their head." (TI 1, p. 287). As

f;~~ rccounteo above, Ms. W;ight testified that she was able to recognize the person
C.~
who was running with the gun in his hand as tho Defendant because the hoodie

U1at he had pu!li,·d over his face kept sliding down. (TT 1, pp. 158-59, 184-85).

ivL;. Wright's testimony was further bolstered by the video from the surveillance

36
 camera, from which it is possible lo identify the Defendanl. and which supports

Ms. i.;Vrighl's teslirnony of the aftermath cf the shooting,

While the murder weapon was never recovered and no forensic evidence

connected th-i:: Defend,:1nt to tho crime. these facts were not, and arc not,

I required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Trial Transcript, Vol. 2,

("TT 2") pp. 43-47, 51, 66, 68). Hie court also notes that, although the
I Defendant presented an alibi defense at trial and claimed that he was at Chuck

E. Cheese celebrating his son's first birthday party al the time of the crime, the

alibi was presented by the Oef,2.ndant's family members only. Aside from their

the parr/.. (-rr2
1 _ J }JP ..'71'
) ''')15
r.:- . :, : ..·3·-,ri··}o
i, -JL. 1
3')')~3c.)
c:« .. -.J u,.

;\qai:lst ihis backdrop, the verdict did not, and does not, shock the

conscience o! this court. \. vhich had tho opportumry to listen to the witnesses and

facts were "so clearly of greater weiqht that to ignore them or to give them equal

weight with all the facts is to deny justice." £2@:..'t.'., supra, at 1054-55. Although

fV1s. Wright did not see the Defendant actually puli the trigger, the circumstances

surrounding the incident. and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom,

estat!list1ed beyond a reasonatile doubt that the Defendant il!f"!'.l
.......... ,.o._. '1ir)(1 Ior the
'.><:;SLJf'1···::,•'- sake of aro:
,.._._i...... -::,......, irnent
·- ~ 1i·,:,1 Ms•..J·V• Vvrioht's
f1,,..... ~-;14..._:i

statement at the hospital should not have been admitted as a prior consistent
.•
~.''
-'·~..
.
statement, the statement was entirely relevant to show Detective Lutton's course
~d
of conduct and to explain the steps that were undertaken in his investigation of

tl,e shootmo. See ~-Q_fI!J.TI_Qfl_,'.{~_?JtO __y_,_~_b_mj_Q.1, 889 A2d 501, 532 (Pa. 2005) ("[ljt

is weli cst<.1blisr1ed that certain out-of-court statements offered to explain the

course of police conduct are admissible because they are offered not for the truth

n
1 .. - ~
t)
i.~,·:
,; !
 of the matters asserted but rather to show the information upon which police

Wg acted.").
I

SigniflcanHy, Ms. Wright's statements about there being an argument

earlier that day did not refer to the Defendant or otherwise implicate the

Defendant in any way. The statement also was not "highly incriminating" in

nature since it did not involve "specltic assertions of criminal conduct on the part

of tho accused." Cornpere Commonwealth. v. Palsa, 555 A.2d 808, 811 (Pa.

1989} (statement not admissible under course of conduct exception where it

accused the defendant of being a drug purchaser and defendant was on trial tor

drug ottense). Ms. Wright's statement about the earlier argument "provided only

the information necessary for a reasonable understanding of the po!ice conduct"

and w2.s., therefore, admissible to show the detectives' course of conduct

pcrtaininq to their investigation of the shootinq, and not to ,::.istablish H1e truth of

the matter. Palsa, supra, at 811. To that end, the court specifically instructed the

jury that Ms. 1/vright's prior consistent statement was not to be considered for the

truth of the matter and was only relevant to help them assess her credibility. (TT

3, p. 9i).

Finally, the court notes that, with the exception of Ms, Wright's brief

rEifeii3nce at the hospital to the argument that had occurred earlier that afternoon

outside of her apartment, the statements that Detective Lutton recounted rnainty
 concerned Ms. Wright's identification of the Defendant as the shooter.

Statements of identification are not considered to be hearsay. (TT 1, pp. 291 .

305); See ~om_rn()nwealth v..,_Wilson, 861 ,\.2(j 919, 929 (Pa. 2004) ("\.Yhere ..

the prior consistent statement rs one of identification, it is adrntss.ole as an

exception to the hearsay rule .... "). Accordingly, for the aforementioned

reasons, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Detective Lutton to

testify as to Ms. Wright's statements.

l I I. CONCLUSiON

tiiu The Defendant's allegations of error are without merit. The Defendant waived his

~~ argurnent regarding the absence of testimony presented in support of the motion to
FJ
1-->·)
Le,

a(_irni~:sion cJid nor violate Pa n E: 40:3 The court did not err by d,?nying the motion to

5ur.1press f\/ls \,'\/righfs prctri2t or in-court identiticaucn because tt1e idcntilicat.on

prot:edure was not unduly suggestive, and, even if it was, the identification was rniiab!e.

The court did not err by al!ovving Detective Bolin to imoeach Ms. Lane with her prior

inconsistent statement because the probative value of this impeachment evidence was

not outweighed by any unfair prejudice. The court did not err by denying the

0£:,fenJant's post-sentence motion because the verdict did not shock the conscience.

,,
r -.·.'I The court did not abuse its discretion by aliov1ing Detective Lutton to testify to Ms.
l]
Wright's prior consistent statements because Ms. Wright's credibility was directly
Fl.
Li attacked. and the statements of idf:ntification were not considered hearsay.

p:1
j ·~
Li
f···!
L.,:)
43
 For the foregoing reasons, the verdicts and sentences in these cases shou!d bo

upheld.

BY THE COURT: