Com. v. Brooks, L.
2840 EDA 2014
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 19, 2016Background
- In Feb. 2011 three victims (Kendall Worrell and his parents) were held at gunpoint in their Philadelphia home; items and cash were stolen and incident lasted ~2 hours. Appellant’s face (with a teardrop tattoo) was uncovered; accomplice wore a hood.
- Victims reported descriptions to police and, the following day, identified Appellant in computer-generated photographic arrays; each later re‑identified him at trial.
- Appellant moved pretrial to suppress identifications; the trial court denied suppression after a hearing.
- After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of three counts of robbery, conspiracy, burglary, and firearms offenses; co‑defendant was acquitted.
- Appellant received an aggregate sentence of 16.5 to 35 years’ imprisonment plus 4 years’ probation; post‑sentence motions denied and appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Brooks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Evidence (eyewitness IDs, trial testimony) sufficed to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt | IDs unreliable and uncorroborated; no forensic/physical links or recovered proceeds | Affirmed — challenge was largely credibility attack; evidence viewed in Commonwealth’s favor supported convictions |
| Weight of the evidence | Jury verdict reasonable based on witness IDs and trial record | Verdict shocks conscience given alleged unreliable IDs and acquittal of co‑defendant | Affirmed — trial court didn’t abuse discretion; credibility for jury to decide |
| Suppression of identifications | Photo arrays and identifications were reliable under totality of the circumstances | ID procedure unduly suggestive (photo repeated, placement first in parents’ array) | Affirmed — array not unduly suggestive; ample indicia of reliability (observation time, unique tattoo, isolation, similar array photos) |
| Trial counsel withdrawal / mistrial | Court can deny withdrawal where breakdown caused by defendant’s own outburst; curative instruction adequate | Counsel should have been permitted to withdraw; mistrial required after defendant’s courtroom outburst and accusations | Affirmed — denial proper (outburst self‑created); defendant waived mistrial claim by not moving immediately; curative instruction sufficient |
| Discretionary sentencing | Sentence within guidelines, court considered factors and imposed standard‑range, consecutive terms | Aggregate sentence excessive; multiple counts constitute one episode and were over‑punished | Affirmed — no substantial question; consecutive standard‑range terms not excessive or outside sentencing norms |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873 (Pa. 2008) (sufficiency review standard)
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 769 A.2d 1116 (Pa. 2001) (photo arrays not unduly suggestive if suspect does not stand out)
- Commonwealth v. Moore, 633 A.2d 1119 (Pa. 1993) (multiple appearances of a defendant’s photo in arrays not necessarily suggestive)
- Commonwealth v. Small, 741 A.2d 666 (Pa. 1999) (weight of evidence standard and deference to factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403 (Pa. 2003) (appellate review of weight claims limited when trial court ruled)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Sanders, 42 A.3d 325 (Pa. Super. 2012) (assessing reliability of identification under totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Lawson, 546 A.2d 589 (Pa. 1988) (curative instructions can cure prejudice; mistrial is extreme remedy)