Com. v. Alexander, L.
Com. v. Alexander, L. No. 1404 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 10, 2017Background
- On May 4, 2012, Daquan Windley was shot outside a bar in Philadelphia; he died 14 days later from his wounds.
- Surveillance cameras recorded interactions inside and outside the bar; the parties stipulated that the person in a light-colored hooded jacket and jeans in the video was Alexander.
- The video (with some admitted missing footage) shows Alexander leaving the bar, receiving an object near a car, crossing the street to Windley, firing multiple shots, and chasing Windley while additional shots are heard.
- An eyewitness (Tyreeke Smith) gave a post-incident statement identifying "Louie" (Alexander) as the shooter but recanted at trial; another witness saw Alexander running away after the shooting.
- A jury convicted Alexander of first‑degree murder, carrying a firearm without a license, and possessing an instrument of crime; he was sentenced to life without parole plus concurrent terms for the other offenses.
- On appeal Alexander challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Alexander) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict of murder | Surveillance video, eyewitness statements, and medical testimony establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Alexander was the shooter | Video did not clearly show the shooting or Alexander with a gun; eyewitness recanted; inconsistent physical details (casings location) and friendship/motive undermine identification | Affirmed — evidence sufficient: video, stipulation of identity, prior eyewitness statements, and medical testimony supported conviction |
| Weight of the evidence — whether verdict "shocks the conscience" | Verdict consistent with overwhelming, corroborated evidence (video + eyewitness statements) | Jury's reliance on recanted testimony and ambiguous video produced a verdict against the weight of the evidence | Affirmed — trial court properly exercised discretion; verdict not so contrary to evidence as to require new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Priest, 18 A.3d 1235 (Pa. Super. 2011) (finder of fact may credit all, part, or none of witness testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 1139 (Pa. 2012) (prior inconsistent statements may support conviction where jury can credit them over in‑court recantations)
- Commonwealth v. Cash, 137 A.3d 1262 (Pa. 2016) (standard for reviewing weight-of-the-evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (weight claim concedes sufficiency; credibility is for the factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (appellate review of trial court's weight‑of‑evidence discretion)