Com. v. Bell, J.
Com. v. Bell, J. No. 3787 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 9, 2017Background
- On June 22, 2010, Jiquan Bell was identified by witnesses as the shooter in a street shooting that killed Lamar Murphy and wounded Hassan Polk; a .38-caliber bullet recovered matched a fragment from a nearby residence.
- Polk testified he saw a red car drive through the block several times and at one point saw Bell in the back seat, but Polk did not see Bell exit the car or the car stop near the shooting; other witnesses did not corroborate the red car account.
- A youth at a detention center (Donte Yarde) overheard Bell boast he killed "Lamar," and Polk also identified Bell to police as the shooter; Bell’s GPS monitoring placed him near the shooting around the time it occurred.
- A jury convicted Bell of first-degree murder, criminal conspiracy, two counts of aggravated assault, carrying a firearm without a license, and possessing an instrument of crime; Bell received a life sentence for murder and no additional penalty was imposed for the other counts.
- On appeal Bell challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence for the criminal conspiracy conviction, arguing the Commonwealth failed to prove an agreement with any co-conspirator.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for criminal conspiracy (18 Pa.C.S. § 903) | Commonwealth: Circumstantial evidence (red car circling, Bell dropped off and later returned to a vehicle, GPS placing Bell nearby, witness identifications and admissions) supports inference of agreement with occupants of the red car | Bell: No evidence any occupant exited, stopped, fled with him, or knew of a plan; no interviews or arrests of alleged co-conspirators — conviction rests on speculation | Court: Reversed conspiracy conviction — evidence insufficient to prove an agreement beyond mere possibility; vacated conspiracy judgment but affirmed other convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehman v. Commonwealth, 820 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- DiStefano v. Commonwealth, 782 A.2d 574 (Pa. Super. 2001) (factfinder’s role on credibility and weight of evidence)
- Weimer v. Commonwealth, 977 A.2d 1103 (Pa. 2009) (elements of conspiracy and use of circumstantial evidence)
- Irvin v. Commonwealth, 134 A.3d 67 (Pa. Super. 2016) (circumstantial evidence may create a "web" proving conspiracy)
- Perez v. Commonwealth, 931 A.2d 703 (Pa. Super. 2007) (factors from which an agreement may be inferred)
- Farquharson v. Commonwealth, 354 A.2d 545 (Pa. 1976) (conviction cannot rest on pure conjecture)
- Lomax v. Commonwealth, 8 A.3d 1264 (Pa. Super. 2010) (vacating a sentence that does not affect the overall sentencing scheme avoids remand)