Com. v. Jackson

947 A.2d 1260

2008 PA Super 89

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Franklin Luther JACKSON, Appellant.

No. 1222 MDA 2007.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted March 10, 2008.

Filed April 30, 2008.

Mark S. Keenheel, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Joshua E. Neiderhiser, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Com., appellee.

BEFORE: STEVENS, PANELLA, and HUDOCK, JJ.

OPINION BY STEVENS, J.:

¶ 1 This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County following Appellant's conviction by a jury on the charge of third degree murder.¹ Appellant contends the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose during Appellant's trial that the Commonwealth was going to dismiss all charges against co-conspirator Shannon Stuart in exchange for Stuart's testimony against Appellant. We affirm.

¶ 2 The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows:

Members of [Appellant's] group got into a verbal dispute with the members of another group. The next day someone fired a shotgun through the front door of the residence where [Appellant] and co-defendant lived on South Queen Street. [Appellant] suspected that the members of the other group with whom they had a dispute were the perpetrators of this shooting.

The following morning, co-defendant Troy Gellespie went out looking for the members of the other group. Gellispie located a member of the other group at a residence located several blocks away on South Queen Street. Gellispie called back to the residence he shared with [Appellant] to arrange for [Appellant] and others who were present at [Appellant's] home to come to this location with guns to get revenge for the previous night's shooting through their door. [Appellant] directed the other occupants of the home to obtain their weapons, and proceeded to drive them to a location back in an alley half a block from where co-defendant Gellispie had indicated the other group would be. [Appellant] gave guns to the other occupants of the vehicle, and directed them to go down the alley to meet with Gellispie.

[Appellant and his co-defendant] believed that an individual called M-Dot was the one who fired the shotgun through their door. M-Dot was not present with the other group which had been located by co-defendant.... However, his brother, Deo Garcia, was seated on the front porch of a residence on South Queen Street. Also present was his sister's husband, who everyone agrees had no involvement in the previous conflicts between the two groups.

When the individuals who were brought to the scene by [Appellant] met co-defendant..., they began shooting at Deo Garcia. Deo Garcia pulled out his own gun and returned the fire. Chris Butler, Deo's sister's husband, attempted to duck behind a parked vehicle. Unfortunately, he was hit right between the eyes by one of the shots and died. The shooters then fled back to the vehicle were [Appellant] was waiting for them, and [Appellant] drove them back to his residence. On the way back, one of [Appellant's] group discarded his weapon. When [Appellant and his co-defendant] arrived back at their residence[,] the shooters attempted to conceal their involvement in the shooting by washing their persons, wiping off weapons, etc. Members of the group went back and picked up the weapon which had been discarded and returned to the house where efforts were made to remove any indication that [the gun] was [used] in the shooting.

The trial was somewhat complicated by the fact that many of the Commonwealth witnesses gave testimony that was contradictory to their previous statements to the police. The Commonwealth called two individuals who happened to be present at the time of the shooting because they were attempting to buy drugs from Deo Garcia. Because their testimony differed from their earlier statements[,] they did not [aid] the Commonwealth's case. The Commonwealth also called at least one witness who was probably one of the individuals who was in [Appellant's] car and took part in the shooting. However, the Commonwealth could not prove that at the time of his testimony, and his actual testimony was again detrimental to the Commonwealth's case.

The Commonwealth did have the testimony of Desiree Garcia, the wife of the murder victim, Chris Butler. However, her initial report of the crime attempted to conceal her brother, Deo Garcia's, role in the shooting. Therefore, she described another individual to the police. The police subsequently found the individual she described, but were able to establish that [the] individual was in jail in Philadelphia at the time of the shooting.... Therefore, Desiree Garcia's testimony was flawed by this misdirection of the truth.

Fortunately for the Commonwealth, two witnesses that the Commonwealth originally did not intend to call saved their case. The Commonwealth had not intended to call Deo Garcia because of his extensive criminal record, his probable involvement in the shooting into the co-defendants' residence the night before, and his lack of cooperation with the police investigation. However, when the Commonwealth's other witnesses "went south," the Commonwealth was essentially forced to call Deo Garcia. To the Commonwealth's surprise, he turned out to be an excellent witness, particularly at describing what happened at the scene of the crime when the shooting was [occurring.] However, even Deo Garcia didn't really involve [Appellant] in the crime since he was not one of the shooters, but had instead remained at a location a half block away where he was not visible to the victims of the shooting.

Shannon Stuart was also charged with Homicide in this case. However, he had fled to Georgia prior to the charges being filed, and therefore, [he] had never been arrested. Fortunately for the Commonwealth, he was picked up in Georgia on the first day of trial. The Commonwealth sent people to interview him in Georgia, and he confessed [to] his involvement, agreed to testify for the Commonwealth, waived extradition, and was immediately brought back to Pennsylvania. The court then appointed counsel for Shannon Stuart. Counsel worked out a plea agreement with the District Attorney, whereby the charge of First Degree Murder[, which was lodged] against him was dropped, and he agreed to testify for the Commonwealth.

It is noted that defendants objected to Shannon Stuart's testimony on the basis that they hadn't received notice prior to trial. However, it is obvious the Commonwealth couldn't [have given] the defense notice before trial when the Commonwealth itself didn't know that Stuart would testify prior to trial.

It is noted that the Commonwealth did inform the defense as soon as it became known that Stuart had been arrested and agreed to cooperate. It is further noted that prior to Stuart's testimony defense counsel [was] given the opportunity to review the statement that Stuart had given to the police at the time of his arrest. Therefore, [the trial court ruled] there was no discovery violation as the defense argued.

Stuart then provided the testimony that proved [Appellant's] involvement in the crime. Stuart testified that he was one of the people present at the residence of [Appellant] and [co-defendant] Gellispie when Gellispie called and said that he had located the group that had messed with them. Stuart described [Appellant] as the one who directed the gathering of weapons by the rest of the group and drove them to the alley a half block from where the victim was shot. Stuart also stated that [Appellant] directed the passengers in the car to take the weapons, proceed down the alley to meet up with Gellispie, and do what they came for. Stuart also described how the shooters fled back to [Appellant's] car where he was waiting for them. Stuart further described the efforts made to conceal evidence, which he said was directed by [Appellant].

[The jury convicted Appellant of third degree murder.] Sometime after the trial was over, [on or about April 16, 2007,] the Commonwealth dismissed all charges against Shannon Stuart.

Trial Court Opinion filed 9/17/07 at 1-5.

¶ 3 On April 30, 2007, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate of twenty years to forty years in prison. On May 8, 2007, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion challenging, inter alia, the Commonwealth dismissing the charges against Shannon Stuart subsequent to Appellant's trial. Following a hearing, which was held on June 25, 2007, the trial court denied Appellant's post-sentence motion by order entered on July 19, 2007. This timely appeal followed. On July 25, 2007, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a Pa. R.A.P.1925(b) statement, and Appellant filed a timely petition seeking an extension of time due to the unavailability of the transcripts. The trial court granted Appellant an extension of time, and Appellant filed a Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) statement within fourteen days of receiving the trial transcripts. The trial court filed a responsive Pa.R.A.P.1925(a) opinion.

¶ 4 Appellant contends the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation by failing to inform the defense and jury that the Commonwealth was going to dismiss the charges filed against Shannon Stuart in exchange for Stuart's trial testimony against Appellant. Appellant contends that if the jury would have been told the charges against Stuart were going to be dismissed by the Commonwealth there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of Appellant's trial would have been different.

In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 86, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the United States Supreme Court declared that due process is offended when the prosecution withholds evidence favorable to the accused. Exculpatory evidence favorable to the accused is not confined to evidence that reflects upon the culpability of the defendant: "Exculpatory evidence also includes evidence of an impeachment nature that is material to the case against the accused." Commonwealth v. Strong, 563 Pa....