Com. v. Clark, L.
Com. v. Clark, L. No. 1289 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Appellant Lamar Douglas Clark was convicted by a jury in Lancaster County of third-degree murder, carrying a firearm without a license, two counts of aggravated assault, and eleven counts of recklessly endangering another person for firing into a crowded barroom and striking Cynthia Boots and killing another victim.
- At trial, witnesses (Commonwealth and defense) testified Clark pointed a gun at one person and then fired multiple shots into the crowd. Boots was hit in the chest and suffered serious injuries (blood loss, infection risk, scarring, ongoing pain).
- Clark asserted justification and suggested he reasonably believed he was subject to a felonious robbery; defense theory also argued certain witnesses ‘‘set up’’ Clark.
- Clark challenged sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault of Boots, requested a specific jury instruction including reference to being subject to robbery, and moved for mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument.
- The trial court denied relief on all claims; the Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s detailed opinion and reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault (Boots) | Commonwealth: testimony showed Clark aimed at Gonzalez and fired into crowd; intent to cause serious injury can be inferred and transfers to Boots; alternatively recklessness showing extreme indifference supports aggravated assault | Clark: insufficient proof he specifically intended to seriously injure Boots and Boots did not suffer serious bodily injury | Held: Evidence (direct and circumstantial) supported intent/recklessness and Boots’ injuries qualified as serious; conviction affirmed |
| Jury instruction on justification — include "subject to felonious act of robbery" language | N/A (request originated with defense) | Clark: requested instruction that he reasonably believed he was subject to robbery, supporting justification defense | Held: Denial proper — evidence supporting a robbery-based belief was too vague/speculative to require inclusion |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing — improper opinion, bolstering, introducing evidence not in record, shifting burden | Clark: prosecutor misstated facts, bolstered witness credibility, commented beyond record, and shifted burden to defense, warranting mistrial/curative instruction | Commonwealth: comments were responsive to defense, included clarifications that Commonwealth bore burden, and were oratorical flourishes within permissible latitude | Held: No prosecutorial misconduct warranting mistrial; remarks were responsive/oratorical and court instructed jury on burden/credibility |
| Waiver of certain closing-argument claims | Commonwealth: some objections not timely preserved | Clark: raised issues on appeal | Held: Claims tied to comments not objected to at trial were waived on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2005) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard and deference to factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Bullick, 830 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2003) (circumstantial evidence can satisfy Commonwealth's burden)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 24 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for jury-instruction challenges is abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Galvin, 985 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2009) (trial court discretion in jury instructions; appellate deference)
- Commonwealth v. Lukowich, 875 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2005) (trial court must present law clearly, adequately, accurately)
- Commonwealth v. Bohonyi, 900 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. 2006) (defendant entitled to instruction on a recognized defense only if supported by evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Brooker, 103 A.3d 325 (Pa. Super. 2014) (review of mistrial denial is for abuse of discretion)