Com. v. Anderson, R., Com. v. Anderson, R. No. 2117 EDA 2015

Background

On July 13, 2013, after a prior fight, Robert M. Anderson (Appellant) and Tyreek Hall drove to a basketball court where Hall fired into a crowd, killing Tremaine Rogers. Anderson was the driver and urged Hall to "get busy."
Witnesses identified Anderson as the driver and Hall as the shooter from photo arrays; Anderson had rented and then exchanged a Mustang the evening of the shooting.
Hall testified he acted in self-defense; Anderson did not testify.
Anderson was tried jointly with Hall, convicted by a jury of third-degree murder (acquitted of conspiracy and PIC) and sentenced to 20–40 years.
On appeal Anderson argued (1) insufficient evidence for third-degree murder, (2) prosecutorial misconduct including comments about post-arrest silence and disparaging defense theory, and (3) judicial misconduct for the trial judge’s admonishment of Anderson’s counsel.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Anderson)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for third-degree murder	Evidence supported accomplice liability: Anderson aided/facilitated murder (driving, directing, fleeing, concealing car)	Anderson lacked knowledge Hall was armed and did not intend a shooting; acquittals (conspiracy, PIC) undermine conviction	Affirmed — evidence sufficient to convict Anderson as accomplice; malice shown by use of deadly weapon on a vital part and circumstantial proof of aiding conduct
Prosecutorial misconduct — inference from post-arrest silence	No improper inference identified; prosecutor's remarks addressed Hall’s self-defense claim	Prosecutor drew adverse inference from Anderson’s post-arrest silence, warranting mistrial	Waived and meritless — appellant failed to cite record; review of cited portions shows no clear post-arrest silence comment
Prosecutorial misconduct — disparaging defense as "concocted/ridiculous"	Prosecutor may respond vigorously to defense theory and argue inconsistency with evidence	Such characterizations were improper and prejudicial, denying fair trial	Rejected — comments responded to defense arguments (self-defense) and were within permissible vigor of closing argument
Judicial conduct — judge’s admonishment/yelling at defense counsel in front of jury	Court acted to preserve order; admonishment was limited and mostly outside jury presence	Judge’s tone and admonishment were prejudicial and caused irreparable harm	Rejected — no abuse of discretion; remarks aimed to curb argumentation and did not deprive defendant of fair trial

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873 (Pa. 2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Commonwealth v. Morris, 958 A.2d 569 (Pa. Super. 2008) (third-degree murder requires malice)
Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574 (Pa. Super. 2001) (malice defined; no specific intent to kill required for third-degree)
Commonwealth v. Clark, 411 A.2d 800 (Pa. Super. 1979) (malice may be inferred from use of dangerous weapon on vital body part)
Commonwealth v. Kimbrough, 872 A.2d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2005) (accomplice liability requires intent to promote/facilitate and aid; may be shown circumstantially)
Commonwealth v. Gooding, 818 A.2d 546 (Pa. Super. 2003) (drivers who deliver shooter to scene can be held accountable as accomplices)
Commonwealth v. Rakowski, 987 A.2d 1215 (Pa. Super. 2010) (acquittal on some counts does not preclude sufficiency on others)
Commonwealth v. Fortenbaugh, 69 A.3d 191 (Pa. 2013) (standard for mistrial review and prosecutorial misconduct)
Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2011) (discussing mistrial standards)
Commonwealth v. Judy, 978 A.2d 1015 (Pa. Super. 2009) (prosecutorial remarks reviewed in context; fair trial, not perfect trial, standard)
Commonwealth v. Holley, 945 A.2d 241 (Pa. Super. 2008) (prosecutor allowed latitude when remarks supported by evidence)
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501 (Pa. 2005) (prosecutor may respond forcefully to defense arguments)
Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 839 A.2d 202 (Pa. 2003) (post-arrest silence comment must be clearly referenced to be improper)
Commonwealth v. McMullen, 745 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2000) (briefing deficiencies can waive issues)
Commonwealth v. Miller, 731 A.2d 1121 (Pa. Super. 1998) (appellate court will not act as defendant's counsel to identify record support)
Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811 (Pa. 1994) (judge's unwise remarks require reversal only if prejudicial)
Commonwealth v. Goosby, 301 A.2d 673 (Pa. 1973) (same)
Commonwealth v. Marker, 331 A.2d 883 (Pa. Super. 1974) (trial judge has discretion to limit cross-examination)