Com. v. Collins, R.
Com. v. Collins, R. No. 3249 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 28, 2017Background
- In March 2015 Artie Bradley was shot multiple times and died in Pottstown, PA; Mariah Walton (Collins’s companion and co-dealer) testified she drove Collins to, watched, and drove him away from the murder scene.
- Walton pleaded guilty shortly before trial and admitted prior lies to police; several witnesses placed Collins in the vicinity and linked him to a .380 handgun.
- A jury convicted Richard Allen Collins of first‑degree murder, conspiracy to commit first‑degree murder, possession with intent to deliver (cocaine), and conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver; trial court imposed consecutive life sentence.
- Collins appealed asserting: insufficiency of evidence/proximity beyond mere presence, weight/credibility challenges (primarily to Walton), improper admission of other‑bad‑acts evidence (items 9–13 under Pa.R.E. 404(b)), improper witness testimony (sequestration/transportation breach), and improper photo‑array/identification.
- Trial court denied post‑sentence relief; Superior Court reviewed sufficiency/weight standards, evidentiary rulings, and suppression ruling deference, and affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth (Plaintiff) Argument | Collins (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove Collins’s participation/proximity beyond mere presence | Evidence (Walton’s eyewitness testimony, circumstantial links, other identifications) was sufficient to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt | Walton was unreliable, had pleaded guilty, lied to police, and her testimony was fabricated; prosecution evidence was insufficient | Waived as framed (Collins argued credibility not legal sufficiency); no reversible defect in record; conviction affirmed |
| Weight of the evidence / credibility of witnesses | Jury was entitled to credit Walton and other witnesses; trial court properly evaluated weight claim after post‑sentence motion | Verdict shocks conscience given inconsistencies/timing issues and Walton’s incentives; new trial required | Trial court did not abuse discretion; weight claim denied and appellate court refused to overturn credibility determinations |
| Admissibility of "other bad acts" (items 9–13) under Pa.R.E. 404(b) | Evidence was probative of motive, intent, and the course of events leading to the murder; probative value outweighed potential prejudice | Evidence was unduly prejudicial and improperly appealed to sympathy, diverting jury from impartial weighing of proof | Issue waived for inadequate development on appeal; trial court’s 404(b) rulings upheld on record |
| Photo‑array and in‑court identifications / suggestiveness | Photo array not contestable on appeal because Collins failed to include photo array in certified record; in‑court IDs were not tainted and witnesses had independent familiarity | Photo array was unduly suggestive (varying ages, facial hair, skin tone); in‑court IDs were unreliable and influenced by seating next to counsel | Challenge to suppression waived for lack of record; in‑court identifications admissible and Collins failed to preserve or prove taint |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Estepp, 17 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review; consider all evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 A.3d 852 (Pa. Super. 2010) (sufficiency and deference to factfinder on credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Sanders, 627 A.2d 183 (Pa. Super. 1993) (circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction if combination links accused to crime)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915 (Pa. 2009) (issues waived where appellant fails to develop argument or cite authority)
- Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 860 A.2d 102 (Pa. 2004) (appellate standard for weight‑of‑evidence review and deference to trial court)
- Commonwealth v. Trippett, 932 A.2d 188 (Pa. Super. 2007) (limits on appellate review of weight claims; trial court's discretionary role)
- Commonwealth v. Fulmore, 25 A.3d 340 (Pa. Super. 2011) (photo arrays not unduly suggestive if suspect’s photo does not stand out)
- Commonwealth v. Stiles, 143 A.3d 968 (Pa. Super. 2016) (scope of review for suppression rulings tied to certified record)
- Commonwealth v. Martz, 926 A.2d 514 (Pa. Super. 2007) (challenge to photo array waived where appellant failed to include array in record)
- Commonwealth v. Wade, 33 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2011) (in‑court identification may be admissible despite problematic pretrial ID if in‑court ID not tainted)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 73 A.3d 609 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by record)