Commonwealth v. Perez

249 A.3d 1092

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant

v.Carlos PEREZ, Appellee

No. 9 EAP 2020

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: December 1, 2020

Decided: April 29, 2021

Lawrence Jonathan Goode, Matthew Hoffmann Davis, Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, for Appellant.

Teri B.Himebaugh, W. Fred Harrison, Jr., Philadelphia, for Appellee.

BAER, C.J., SAYLOR, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.

OPINION

JUSTICE DOUGHERTY

We granted discretionary review to determine whether the Superior Court employed the proper standard for evidentiary sufficiency in evaluating the Commonwealth's prima facie presentation at a preliminary hearing. See Commonwealth v. Karetny , 583 Pa. 514, 880 A.2d 505, 513-15 (2005) (Commonwealth need not prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at pre-trial stage; it must put forth sufficient evidence to establish prima facie case of guilt, i.e., probable cause to warrant belief the accused committed the offense); Commonwealth v. Huggins , 575 Pa. 395, 836 A.2d 862, 866 (2003) (when determining whether prima facie case has been established, evidence must be read in light most favorable to Commonwealth, giving effect to all inferences reasonably drawn from evidence to support a verdict of guilty). We hold the Superior Court failed to review the evidence in the proper light, and accordingly, we reverse and remand.

I.

Appellee was arrested and charged with first-degree murder for the stabbing death of the victim during a physical altercation inside a Philadelphia nightclub (the Bleu Martini) during the early morning hours of August 20, 2016. At a first preliminary hearing conducted on March 22, 2017,¹ Hector Martinez, a friend of the victim, testified he and the victim arrived at the Bleu Martini just before closing, but were permitted to enter after paying a fee to a "bouncer." N.T. Preliminary Hearing, 3/22/17 at 5. Martinez testified he saw appellee wearing a gray shirt sitting at a table approximately four feet from where the victim was dancing with a female in a group. Martinez testified he saw appellee stand up and approach the group, the only "males" in the area were appellee and the victim, and he saw two "bouncers" walk toward them. Id . at 8, 9, 25. Martinez testified he then saw the victim walk outside, holding his neck. Martinez followed the victim outside, and saw "blood [ ] gushing out of his neck." Id . at 10. Martinez became enraged, "turned back to go inside of the [c]lub[,]" saw appellee "coming outside, he had the blood on his shirt[;] ...It was full of blood." Id . at 10, 11. Martinez testified he asked appellee, "What did you do to my friend?" and when appellee "pretended he didn't know what I was saying[,]" Martinez "punched [appellee] in the face and [appellee] went [back] inside the club." Id . at 10-11, 20. Martinez testified he assumed appellee was the victim's attacker. Id . at 11. On cross-examination, Martinez testified although he saw blood on appellee's shirt, he did not actually see the victim get stabbed. Id . at 34.

Following the testimony of Martinez, the Commonwealth introduced a DNA lab report showing that blood samples taken from the front and back of appellee's gray shirt "originated from the same source" and "matche[d]" the victim's DNA, and appellee himself was "excluded as a source" for that blood. Id . at 37-38. After the Commonwealth rested, appellee's counsel argued the club was crowded, there were females in the vicinity of the incident, "the witness did not see what happened to [the victim]. He doesn't know if it [was] a male or female that caused the injury[;]" and the witness merely assumed appellee stabbed the victim because appellee "had blood on his shirt[.]" Id . at 38. Thereafter, the court stated there was a lack of "evidence that would tie this defendant to the case to hold it for trial[;]" noting "[a]nyone near the defendant [sic], if it is squirting out of his neck, would have gotten blood on them[;] ... There is probably blood on a number of people that were around the defendant [sic] with blood squirting out of his neck." Id . at 40.² The court then asked counsel for the Commonwealth, "Why does it have to be a male that did[ ] it?" Id . When counsel answered by repeating the question, the court stated "You can't answer that. Discharged, lack of evidence."³ Id . The court granted the Commonwealth's request to stay the discharge order and the Commonwealth re-filed the charges.

A second preliminary hearing was conducted before a different jurist of the common pleas court on April 5, 2017.⁴ At the outset, the court stated it had "read the notes of testimony" from the first preliminary hearing, and noted, "the issue[ ] [here] is not whether or not a crime was committed, I think there is an agreement there was a crime committed, but the identity of the perpetrator is the issue in question." N.T. Preliminary Hearing, 4/5/17 at 9, 15-16. The Commonwealth then called as its first witness Marquis McNair, a "bouncer" who worked security at the Bleu Martini. Id. at 19. McNair testified he was working "the front door" on the night in question, when a "black guy" and a "Spanish guy" got into a pushing match.⁵ Id . at 22, 27. Appellee was wearing a "gr[a]y shirt." Id . at 31. McNair testified he and another member of the club's security staff quickly and easily broke up the pushing match between the two men and returned to their stations at the front door. However, McNair then testified, "like a couple minutes later, the [victim] and [appellee] was at it again." Id . at 34. The second incident between the men was "worse," and "more aggressive" than the first. Id . at 62-63, 75. McNair and another security staff member quickly responded to the altercation and had to pry the men apart. McNair did not see anything in appellee's hands, but saw him make an "arm movement" toward the victim's "neck area."⁶ Id . at 76. Within two seconds after separating the men, as McNair was "right there facing the [victim]" a female screamed "they cut him[.]" Id . at 35, 65, 66. "At first," McNair thought "nothing of it. I thought [the victim] just got punched in the face, [but] then he took his hand off his neck and blood was just gushing out." Id . at 35. McNair testified he saw the victim "walk[ ] outside ... stumble[ ] a little bit and collapse[ ] across the street." Id . at 36.

McNair then began clearing patrons out of the club, and after the premises had been cleared, McNair noticed appellee standing inside a "little doorway" separating the "first bar" from the "second bar." Id . at 38. At this point, appellee was only wearing a tank-top, and McNair, knowing the "rules [of] the club is [one] must have a shirt on[,]" asked him, "[W]here's your shirt?" Id . at 37, 39. Appellee answered he left it in the bathroom because "it got bloody." Id . at 39. McNair escorted appellee to the bathroom, where appellee retrieved his gray shirt after "fishing for [it] in the trash bin [ ] on the wall." Id . at 40. McNair noticed the shirt was the same gray shirt appellee had been wearing, and that it was bloody. McNair testified he saw no other patrons in the club at that time, so he had appellee sit down in a booth with the shirt draped over appellee's shoulder. McNair later saw appellee sitting in the booth wearing handcuffs and being questioned by police. Id . at 41. The Commonwealth introduced a statement McNair gave to police indicating appellee said he "threw [the shirt] out because it was bloody from the fight." Id . at 44.⁷ McNair was shown a photo of the shirt with blood stains on it and he identified it as the shirt appellee had been wearing and had recovered from the trash can on the night of the crime. Id . at 46.

On cross examination, McNair testified that while the "pushing" incidents in the Bleu Martini involved only the victim and appellee, both individuals were part of larger groups concentrated in a small two-booth area of the club. Both those groups consisted of people who were "black, white, Spanish, male [and] female." Id . at 53-54. McNair could not give a definitive answer as to the number of people around appellee and the victim, or the specific number of people in each group, but testified the total number of people occupying the small two-booth area in which the incident took place was not "more than 15" and not "less than 5." Id . at 55. McNair testified he never saw a weapon and did not hear or see any glass being broken. Id . at 63. McNair agreed the "blood came shooting out of [the victim]," and the blood "could have hit whoever was near him." Id . at 71-72. McNair additionally testified that the other "bouncer" who helped separate appellee and the victim had gotten blood on his suit. McNair disagreed with defense counsel's suggestion that the only reason McNair detained appellee was because he didn't have a shirt on, and explained he detained him, in part, because appellee had been "in the pushing match with the [victim]." Id . at 72. On redirect examination, McNair acknowledged the lighting in the Bleu Martini was "real dim," but maintained no person other than appellee engaged in any altercation with the victim. Id . at 77-78.

The Commonwealth then presented the testimony of Philadelphia Police Officer Charles Stone, who responded to the Bleu Martini with his partner after being "flagged down by a citizen" reporting a fight there. Id . at 85. The officers received a call while en route reporting a "male stabbed across from the Bleu Martini [ ] parking lot." Id . When the officers arrived, they saw the victim lying on the ground, bleeding heavily from the neck and unable to speak. Id . at 85-86. Emergency medical personnel arrived and transported the victim to a hospital, where he later died. Id . at 86. Officer Stone testified an "employee[ ] from the Bleu Martini ... said he had a male inside who was involved in the fight." Id . Once inside, the officer "was pointed in the direction of [appellee] ... [who] was sitting [in...