Com. v. Albright, D.
Com. v. Albright, D. No. 360 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- David Albright (Appellant) was charged after incidents in June 2014 arising from his termination from Vistar: charges included criminal solicitation to commit aggravated assault, terroristic threats, disorderly conduct, and others; some charges were dropped or dismissed prior to trial.
- On Father’s Day evening, Appellant went to his former supervisor K.L.’s apartment, knocked persistently, and after K.L. refused to engage, said “let’s talk about your grave,” which K.L. perceived as a threat; police were called.
- A short time later Appellant approached a group in a nearby courtyard, said he was “on a mission to kill” and, when asked who, said “my boss”; Appellant produced a knife and asked Dwayne Davis if he would do it.
- Police arrived, Officer Bloom subdued and handcuffed Appellant, and a knife was found nearby.
- A jury convicted Appellant of criminal solicitation to commit aggravated assault, terroristic threats, and disorderly conduct; he received an aggregate sentence of 6.5 to 13 years.
- Appellant appealed, raising (1) insufficiency of the evidence on solicitation, (2) hearsay/admission-of-out-of-court statements error, and (3) improper rebuttal/character evidence; the Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of proof for criminal solicitation (18 Pa.C.S. § 902) | Commonwealth: Appellant identified a specific target (his boss) and asked a person present to kill him while producing a knife; jury could infer solicitation. | Albright: No specific conduct/details were requested (no name, place, means, or consideration); statement was too vague to be solicitation. | Affirmed: Jury could reasonably find Appellant requested another to engage in specific conduct (kill his boss); identifying “boss” sufficed. |
| Admission of out-of-court statements (alleged hearsay) | Commonwealth: Statements about Appellant possibly having a weapon were admitted to show their effect on K.L.’s state of mind and actions, not for truth. | Albright: Statements were hearsay and not admissible under an exception. | Affirmed: Statements were non-hearsay when offered to explain K.L.’s conduct; defense later elicited how K.L. learned the information, opening the door to further testimony. |
| Rebuttal evidence via private investigator (character evidence) | Commonwealth: Once Appellant testified he had no history of threats/violence, prosecution could rebut that character evidence. | Albright: He did not open the door to character evidence; rebuttal exceeded permissible reputation testimony and improperly offered specific acts. | Affirmed: Appellant’s own testimony asserting non-violent character opened the door; prosecutor could rebut with testimony about reputation and prior threatening behavior. |
| Weight of the evidence (implicit) | Commonwealth: Evidence supported verdicts; jury credibility findings appropriate. | Albright: Verdicts against weight given lack of specifics and context. | Affirmed: Trial court found verdicts not contrary to the weight of evidence; credibility and inferences were for the jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ramtahal, 33 A.3d 602 (Pa. 2011) (definition of hearsay)
- Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012) (out-of-court statements offered for their effect on listener are non-hearsay)
- Commonwealth v. DeHart, 516 A.2d 656 (Pa. 1986) (statements explaining course of conduct are non-hearsay)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 568 A.2d 600 (Pa. 1989) (same principle regarding statements showing effect on listener)
- Schmalz v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co., 67 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussion of statements showing effect on listener)
- Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574 (Pa. Super. 2001) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2000) (weight-of-the-evidence standard)
- Commonwealth v. Marks, 704 A.2d 1095 (Pa. Super. 1997) (assessing credibility in weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Anneski, 525 A.2d 374 (Pa. Super. 1987) (scope of terroristic threats — not intended to penalize mere spur-of-the-moment anger)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 456 A.2d 171 (Pa. Super. 1983) (examining surrounding circumstances for terroristic threats)
- Commonwealth v. J.H., 797 A.2d 260 (Pa. Super. 2002) (anger does not preclude intent to terrorize)