Com. v. Atkerson, C.
Com. v. Atkerson, C. No. 1861 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 4, 2017Background
- On Sept. 9, 2011, Calvin Atkerson encountered Jasper Washington on Fairhill Street; after an initial argument, Atkerson returned and fired multiple shots, one of which fatally struck James Hall.
- Atkerson fled to a friend’s house where he admitted shooting to “make an example”; police arrested him at that residence, recovered a 9mm matching casings and a shirt, and seized 9.463 grams of crack cocaine from his person.
- Atkerson was convicted by jury of first-degree murder, carrying a firearm without a license, possessing an instrument of a crime, attempted murder, reckless endangerment, and possession with intent to deliver.
- At sentencing the court imposed mandatory life for first-degree murder plus consecutive terms for other convictions; Atkerson did not file post-sentence motions and timely appealed.
- On appeal Atkerson raised four claims: (1) sufficiency of the evidence; (2) weight of the evidence; (3) trial court erred in denying a mistrial after his outburst calling jurors “racist”; and (4) trial court erred in denying defense counsel’s request for a mental-health (competency) exam.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Atkerson: witness inconsistencies meant proof was insufficient to convict | Commonwealth: evidence (identification, gun matching casings, statements, possession of drugs) supported convictions | Waived for inadequate Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) specificity; even on merits claim attacks credibility (weight), not sufficiency, so would fail |
| Weight of the evidence | Atkerson: verdict was against weight given witness inconsistencies | Commonwealth: jury verdict should stand; credibility issues for jury | Waived for failure to preserve by post-sentence motion or oral motion before sentencing; no review on merits |
| Mistrial for juror-bias comment | Atkerson: his comment labeling jurors “racist” prejudiced jury so only mistrial would cure | Commonwealth: comment was defendant’s outburst/tactic and court instruction cured any prejudice | Denied; trial court did not abuse discretion—court struck comment and instructed jury to ignore it; jury presumed to follow instruction |
| Request for mental-health (competency) exam | Atkerson: outburst showed mental state at issue; exam needed to determine competency | Commonwealth/trial court: outburst appeared tactical; court observed defendant able to participate; exam unnecessary | Denied; abuse of discretion not shown—request came after outburst and court reasonably found ability to cooperate with counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Rule 1925(b) specificity requirement for sufficiency challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. 2013) (credibility challenges implicate weight, not sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Tejeda, 834 A.2d 619 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard for mistrial review; discretion and abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Commonwealth v. Marinelli, 690 A.2d 203 (Pa. 1997) (denial of mistrial after defendant outburst not abuse where court cured prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Laird, 988 A.2d 618 (Pa. 2010) (presumption that jury follows curative instruction)
- Commonwealth v. Mayer, 685 A.2d 571 (Pa. Super. 1996) (trial court has discretion to order incompetency examination)