Com. v. Barker, S.
291 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- Defendant Shane Barker shot and killed Jerome Buckner outside Queenies Café in Harrisburg after an altercation; Barker fired seven shots while the victim was running away; four shots struck the victim in the back, killing him.
- Barker testified he was attacked, went to his car, retrieved a gun from under the seat, and fired believing deadly force was necessary; he also testified to prior violent victimization and being intoxicated.
- Commonwealth presented eyewitness, medical, and ballistic evidence; the autopsy showed all fatal wounds entered the victim from the back and traveled upward right-to-left.
- A jury convicted Barker of third-degree murder; the trial court sentenced him to 18–36 years’ imprisonment (within guidelines).
- Barker filed post-sentence motions arguing the verdict was against the weight of the evidence (self-defense/imperfect self-defense) and that his sentence was manifestly excessive; both were denied and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence (self-defense/imperfect self-defense) | Commonwealth: evidence (eyewitness, ballistic, autopsy) supported conviction; jury could reject defendant's account | Barker: his testimony and history supported a justification defense; jury should have credited his testimony | Trial court did not abuse discretion; appellate court defers to trial court and will not reweigh evidence; weight claim denied |
| Whether the 18–36 year sentence was manifestly excessive | Commonwealth: sentence within guidelines and based on seriousness and facts of case | Barker: sentence excessive given 0 prior record, mitigating factors, rehabilitation while jailed pretrial | No abuse of discretion; sentence within guidelines and court meaningfully weighed mitigating factors; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cash, 137 A.3d 1262 (Pa. 2016) (standard for appellate review of weight-of-the-evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Ratushny, 17 A.3d 1269 (Pa. Super. 2011) (appellate review of weight claims limited to whether trial judge properly exercised discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 861 A.2d 892 (Pa. 2004) (credibility determinations are for the jury)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544 (Pa. Super. 2011) (weight-of-evidence review standards)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 980 A.2d 659 (Pa. Super. 2009) (trial court’s denial of weight claim reviewed for palpable abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. W.H.M., 932 A.2d 155 (Pa. Super. 2007) (procedural framework for discretionary aspects of sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for discretionary sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (deferential appellate review of sentencing under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781)
- Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884 (Pa. Super. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for sentence review)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (presumption sentencing judge considered presentence report and character information)
- Commonwealth v. Begley, 780 A.2d 605 (Pa. 2001) (sentence deference principles)
- Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2014) (claim that court failed to consider mitigating factors raises substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2009) (averment that court sentenced based solely on seriousness raises substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (cited in Moury for sentencing review criteria)