Com. v. Batista, R.
Com. v. Batista, R. No. 2268 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 6, 2017Background
- On Nov. 17, 2014 a group altercation occurred near Water and Tioga Streets; participants included Abdul, Jabbar, Dominique Scott, Appellant Ricardo Batista, Ray, Jose Rivera, and others.
- During the fight, Batista and Ray fought with Abdul; a firearm was involved, with Batista seen possessing a gun and Ray firing two shots that struck Jabbar in the right buttock.
- Surveillance captured participants arriving/leaving but not the shooting; police recovered two 9mm cartridge cases from the street and a 9mm projectile from Jabbar.
- Witnesses identified Batista as a participant who had a gun; one witness testified Ray was the shooter while another said Batista fired at trial (preliminary hearing testimony conflicted).
- Batista was arrested Jan. 15, 2015, after providing a false name and attempting to flee; he was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault and related firearm offenses and sentenced to 10½–21 years.
- Appellant failed to file a timely appeal, obtained reinstatement of appellate rights via PCRA, and appealed solely on sufficiency of the evidence for the conspiracy conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was evidence sufficient to convict Batista of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault? | Commonwealth: Circumstantial proof (joint fighting, both armed, employment relationship, flight) supports inference of agreement and intent. | Batista: No proof of communication or agreement with shooter; actions equally consistent with independent conduct. | Court affirmed: evidence (acting together before/during/after, possession of firearms, relationship, flight) was sufficient to infer conspiratorial agreement and intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for sufficiency; circumstantial evidence may suffice)
- Commonwealth v. Galindes, 786 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2001) (conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence of relations, conduct, circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 756 A.2d 1139 (Pa. 2000) (difficulty proving explicit agreement; use of inferential proof)
- Commonwealth v. French, 578 A.2d 1292 (Pa. Super. 1990) (acting together before, during, after an attack can show unity of criminal purpose)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 65 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. 2013) (elements of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault; intent can be established without completion of underlying assault)
- Commonwealth v. Poland, 26 A.3d 518 (Pa. Super. 2011) (acting together supports conspiracy finding)
- Commonwealth v. Marquez, 980 A.2d 145 (Pa. Super. 2009) (flight and other circumstantial evidence support inference of conspiracy)
- Commonwealth v. Davalos, 779 A.2d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2001) (flight as circumstantial evidence of guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Hatchin, 709 A.2d 405 (Pa. Super. 1998) (same)