Com. v. Coburn, D., 41 WDA 2016

On June 11, 2014, multiple shots were fired at the Hi-View Gardens Apartments in McKeesport; victim Kaleel Herring (aka “Magic”) sustained multiple gunshot wounds and was hospitalized.
Security guards and surveillance video showed a blue Ford Mustang with three Black males leave and then return to the parking lot; shots were heard and the car fled at high speed.
Police identified suspects from video and other information; detectives found a fired nine‑millimeter casing in the Mustang and recovered a Glock 9mm (with extended magazine) from Coburn’s sister’s residence; ballistics testing matched casings from the scene to that Glock.
At the hospital Herring gave a statement to Detective Mayer identifying Coburn as the shooter and circled/initialed a photo; at trial Herring recanted or said he was drugged and pressured when interviewed.
Coburn and co-defendant Dixon waived jury trial and were tried jointly in a bench trial; Coburn was convicted of criminal attempt–homicide, aggravated assault (serious bodily injury), REAP, carrying a firearm without a license, and persons not to possess a firearm; sentenced to 9–18 years on the attempt-homicide count.
On appeal Coburn challenged (1) admission of Detective Mayer’s testimony recounting Herring’s hospital statements (hearsay / impeachment limits / Rule 403) and (2) sufficiency of the evidence to prove Coburn was the shooter if the hospital statements were treated only as impeachment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Admissibility of Detective Mayer’s testimony recounting Herring’s hospital statements (hearsay / prior inconsistent statement)	Commonwealth: Mayer’s testimony was proper impeachment (prior inconsistent statement) and trial court as factfinder need not state on record limited-purpose receipt	Coburn: Testimony was hearsay not admissible substantively; court should have stated limited purpose; statements were not admissible impeachment because not adopted/recorded and prejudicial under Rule 403	Court affirmed: Mayer’s testimony was properly admitted for impeachment under Pa.R.E. 613(b); trial court presumed to know law and considered statements only for impeachment; Coburn waived a Rule 403 objection by not raising it below
2. Sufficiency of evidence to prove Coburn was the shooter if hospital statements only impeach	N/A (appellant argued that without substantive weight of Herring’s ID, evidence was insufficient)	Commonwealth: circumstantial and forensic evidence (video, eyewitnesses placing Coburn in passenger seat, casings in car and at scene matched appellant’s seized firearm, jail calls, flight) supported convictions	Court affirmed: viewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth, the combined circumstantial, ballistic, video, eyewitness, jail-call, and flight evidence sufficed to convict Coburn of attempted homicide, aggravated assault, and REAP

Commonwealth v. Dent, 837 A.2d 571 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
Commonwealth v. Konias, 136 A.3d 1014 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (trial court sitting as factfinder presumed to know law and disregard inadmissible evidence)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 97 A.3d 782 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (presumption about trial court’s knowledge to ignore prejudicial statements)
Commonwealth v. Charleston, 16 A.3d 505 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (admission of third‑party testimony repeating prior inconsistent statement is permissible for impeachment under Pa.R.E. 613(b))
Commonwealth v. Simmons, 662 A.2d 621 (Pa. 1995) (authentication requirement for use of notes/statements)
Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d 1025 (Pa. 2007) (preservation of objections; appellate review confined to objections made below)
Commonwealth v. Bedford, 50 A.3d 707 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (waiver of unspecified appellate objections)
Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 141 A.3d 523 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (mens rea for attempt may be proven circumstantially)
Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007) (use of a deadly weapon on a vital part can establish specific intent to kill)
Commonwealth v. Matthew, 909 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (elements of aggravated assault)
Commonwealth v. Trowbridge, 395 A.2d 1337 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (elements of REAP)