Com. v. Bowers, R., 388 WDA 2016

Background

Appellant Ryan Phyllip Bowers and codefendant Patrick McCamey went to Michael Johns’ home intending to commit burglary/robbery; an altercation occurred and Johns was killed. Both defendants were stabbed during the struggle.
Bowers was arrested, gave a recorded custodial statement after receiving Miranda warnings, and later contested admissibility claiming he had invoked his right to counsel during the interview.
A suppression hearing was held; the court denied suppression, finding Bowers never unequivocally requested counsel and continued to speak voluntarily.
Bowers was convicted by a jury of robbery, burglary, two counts of second-degree (felony) murder, and third-degree murder; sentenced to concurrent life terms for second-degree murder and additional terms for other counts.
Bowers appealed, raising three main issues: (1) whether his custodial statements should have been suppressed after an asserted invocation of the right to counsel; (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing a requested jury instruction clarifying the Commonwealth’s burden to disprove that McCamey acted for personal reasons; and (3) whether a mandatory life sentence for second-degree murder is cruel and unusual punishment.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether Bowers validly invoked right to counsel during custodial interrogation, requiring suppression of statements	Bowers: his on-record remark that he wasn’t sure if he should speak without a lawyer amounted to an invocation of counsel	Commonwealth: the remark was ambiguous/equivocal; Bowers never unequivocally requested counsel and waived rights by continuing to talk	Court: Affirmed denial of suppression; statement was equivocal (citing Davis standard)
Adequacy of jury instruction on burden to disprove that McCamey killed for personal reasons independent of felony	Bowers: requested explicit instruction that Commonwealth must prove killing was not for independent personal reasons	Commonwealth/Trial Ct.: jury was properly instructed generally and via a supplemental answer; burden always on prosecution to prove each element	Court: No abuse of discretion; instructions taken as a whole adequately conveyed the Commonwealth’s burden
Constitutionality of mandatory life sentence for second-degree (felony) murder as cruel and unusual	Bowers: mandatory life without parole is grossly disproportionate when killing lacks intent/malice; invokes Miller to argue for consideration of developmental factors	Commonwealth/Trial Ct.: legislative sentencing scheme presumptively valid; Miller applies only to juvenile offenders	Court: Denied relief; precedent upholding life sentence for second-degree murder remains controlling; Miller inapplicable to adult offender
(Unraised potential issue noted by court) Legality of multiple murder convictions/sentences for one victim	(Not raised on appeal)	Court observed possible legality question but declined to address sua sponte due to complexity	Court: Declined to consider because appellant did not raise it on appeal

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (established Miranda warnings and right to counsel during custodial interrogation)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (once right to counsel invoked, police must cease questioning until counsel present)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (an invocation of counsel must be unambiguous; ambiguous statements do not require cessation of interrogation)
Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
Commonwealth v. Perel, 107 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standards of review for suppression rulings)
Commonwealth v. Martin, 101 A.3d 706 (Pa. 2014) (clarifies objective test for invocation of Miranda right to counsel)
Commonwealth v. Henkel, 938 A.2d 433 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (upholding constitutionality of life sentence for second-degree murder)
Commonwealth v. Middleton, 467 A.2d 841 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (discussing seriousness of felony-murder and sentencing legitimacy)