Commonwealth v. Blackston

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN BLACKSTON Appellant

No. 24 EDA 2023

No. J-A24020-24

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

December 3, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 5, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0002035-2020

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., KING, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM

KING J.

Appellant John Blackston, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial convictions for first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault, firearms not to be carried without a license, and possession of an instrument of crime.^[1] We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On August 7, 2020, Christopher King and Jennie Luckie left home at approximately 4:00 a.m. to buy cigarettes. Upon their return, Mr. King parked his car, and the two remained in the car while Mr. King phoned his brother. Mr. King then observed a white Nissan Rogue drive down the street towards him, stopping next to his vehicle. Mr. King recognized Appellant as the driver.

Before Mr. King could react, Appellant pointed a gun at him and opened fire, shooting Mr. King and Ms. Luckie several times. Mr. King managed to drive away from the scene but had to pull over several blocks away.

At approximately 4:30 a.m., police officers were dispatched to 9^th and Chestnut Streets in Trainer Borough, Delaware County. Officer Gary Richardson observed a red Nissan Altima stopped in the westbound lane. As he approached, he saw Mr. King in the driver's seat, and Ms. Luckie in the passenger seat. Both had suffered multiple gunshot wounds. Mr. King attempted to exit the vehicle, but he immediately collapsed on the street before being taken by ambulance to the hospital. Ms. Luckie was pronounced dead at the scene. The shooting was captured on video surveillance, which corroborated Mr. King's account of the events.

During the subsequent investigation, Mr. King identified Appellant, who he knew personally, as the shooter. Mr. King had previously had a romantic relationship and two children with a woman named Lasheira Johnson before he was incarcerated in early 2015. During that time, Ms. Johnson began a romantic relationship with Appellant. Mr. King and Appellant met after Mr. King's release from prison. In September 2015, the two men engaged in a physical altercation which resulted in Mr. King's permanent blindness in one eye.^[2] Appellant had a good relationship with Mr. King and Ms. Johnson's children, although the children were removed from her custody at some point and placed in foster care. Erin Wiggle served as their foster parent.

As the case proceeded to trial, both parties filed motions in limine. Relevant to the instant appeal, on February 10, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a motion requesting that the defense be precluded from referencing several prior convictions of Mr. King's, including a 2015 conviction for failure to register as a sex offender with the Pennsylvania State Police. The trial court granted this motion.

On April 4, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a motion seeking to exclude the testimony of Ms. Wiggle. The motion requested that Ms. Wiggle be prohibited from testifying that (1) she was the foster mother to Ms. Johnson's children, and (2) that Appellant was a "father figure" to the children, that he visited with the children at her home, and that he was considering becoming their legal guardian. Following oral argument, the trial court entered an order granting the motion in part. Specifically, the order prohibited Ms. Wiggle from testifying about Appellant's visits to her house to see the children, Appellant's relationship with the children, and the fact that the children were in foster care.

Following trial, a jury convicted Appellant of the above-mentioned crimes. On December 5, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of life imprisonment without parole. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on December 19, 2022. On December 22, 2022, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement, and on January 12, 2023, Appellant timely complied.^[3]

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for review:

Should the judgment of conviction be vacated where the [trial court] improperly:

Precluded Appellant from impeaching the Commonwealth's sole inculpatory witness with evidence of his conviction for knowingly failing to register as a sexual offender, a crimen falsi offense subject to mandatory admission; and

Precluded Appellant from presenting testimonial evidence showing that the witness was motivated to falsely implicate Appellant, an antagonist of the witness who had begun supplanting the witness as a parental figure to the witness' own children?

(Appellant's Brief at 3).

Both of Appellant's issues concern the trial court's evidentiary rulings. Our standard of review of such decisions is well settled: "When ruling on a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion in limine, we apply an evidentiary abuse of discretion standard of review." Commonwealth v. Belani, 101 A.3d 1156, 1160 (Pa.Super. 2014). "An abuse of discretion may not be found merely because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion." Commonwealth v. Cook, 231 A.3d 913, 919 (Pa.Super. 2020) (citation omitted). Rather, an abuse of discretion only occurs where the trial court has committed an error of law, or "when the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or is the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill- will." Id. (citation omitted). Further, to the extent we are required to review the trial court's conclusions of law, "our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary." Commonwealth v. Wilmer, 648 Pa. 577, 583, 194 A.3d 564, 567 (2018).

In Appellant's first issue, he argues that the court improperly precluded him from presenting evidence that Mr. King had been previously convicted for failing to register as a sex offender. Appellant claims that if a crimen falsi conviction is less than ten years old, its admission is mandatory. Although by definition, crimen falsi is a crime of dishonesty or involving a false statement, Appellant suggests that Pennsylvania courts have adopted a more expansive definition of crimen falsi that should encompass offenses that do "not necessarily involve any deception," including the failure to register as a sex offender. Appellant further suggests that because Mr. King was the Commonwealth's sole eyewitness and the ability to impeach his testimony was of paramount importance, he was prejudiced by the ruling. We disagree.

The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence provide that a witness may be impeached by evidence of a criminal conviction:

Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction

(a) In General. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of any witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime, whether by verdict or by plea of guilty or nolo contendere, must be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false statement.

Pa.R.E. 609. This Court has explained:

"[C]rimes involving dishonesty or false statement [are] commonly referred to as crimen falsi crimes, for purposes of impeaching a witness's credibility." Commonwealth v. Moser, 999 A.2d 602, 607 n.6 (Pa.Super. 2010), appeal denied, 610 Pa. 595, 20 A.3d 485 (2011). See also Commonwealth v. E. Jones, 334 Pa. 321, 323, 5 A.2d 804, 805 (1939) (stating term crimen falsi involves element of falsehood and includes everything which has tendency to injuriously affect administration of justice by introduction of falsehood and fraud).

When deciding whether a crime is crimen falsi, we initially "examine the essential elements of the offense to determine if the crime is inherently crimen falsi-whether dishonesty or false statement are a necessary prerequisite to commission of the crime." Commonwealth v. Davis, 17 A.3d 390, 395-96 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 611 Pa. 678, 29 A.3d 371 (2011). "[I]f the crime is not inherently crimen falsi, this Court then inspects the underlying facts that led to the conviction to determine if dishonesty or false statement facilitated the commission of the crime. The burden of proof is upon the party offering the conviction during cross-examination." Id. at 396.

Commonwealth v. Washington, 269 A.3d 1255, 1264-65 (Pa.Super. 2022) (en banc), appeal denied, __ Pa. __, 283 A.3d 1249 (2022). See also Commonwealth v Cole, 227 A.3d 336, 340 (Pa.Super. 2020) (noting that burglary and crimes of theft are crimen falsi convictions). Compare Commonwealth v. Grimm, 378 A.2d 377, 380 (Pa.Super. 1977) (explaining that convictions showing assaultive or disorderly conduct are not crimen falsi because they do not involve false statement or dishonesty and are completely irrelevant to issue of the witness' veracity).

Instantly the trial court explained its rationale for precluding evidence of Mr. King's 2015 conviction for failure to register as a sexual offender, as follows:^[4]

In deciding whether a particular offense is crimen falsi, the court must consider both the elemental aspects of that offense and the conduct of the defendant. First, the [c]ourt examines the essential elements of the offense to determine if the crime is inherently crimen falsi or whether dishonesty or false statement are a prerequisite for the commission of the crime. Second, if the crime is not inherently crimen falsi, the court reviews the underlying facts of the crime to determine if dishonesty or false statement facilitated the commission of the crime.

Failing to Register with the

...