Com. v. Crawford, A.
3070 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 12, 2017Background
- At ~2:00 a.m. after a bar altercation, Anthony J. Crawford pulled a gun and shot Desman Johnson multiple times; Johnson survived serious injuries requiring surgery.
- Brian Stokes (with Crawford earlier in the dispute) fired a gun into the air; police and eyewitnesses tied Crawford to the shooting and he fled the scene.
- Crawford was tried twice: first trial ended in a hung jury (acquitted of attempted murder but deadlocked on other charges); second jury convicted him of aggravated assault, PIC, carrying a firearm without a license, and REAP.
- Sentenced to an aggregate 11 to 22 years' imprisonment; post-sentence motion and motion for new trial denied.
- On appeal Crawford raised double jeopardy, evidentiary (Officer Barr’s testimony) and sufficiency/weight-of-the-evidence claims; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Crawford's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy: Was retrial after hung jury and acquittal on attempted murder barred? | Acquittal on attempted homicide necessarily meant no malice/intent to kill, so retrial on aggravated assault (which requires malice/serious harm) violated double jeopardy. | Retrial allowed where offenses have distinct statutory elements; aggravated assault does not require intent to kill and thus is not the same offense as attempted murder. | Affirmed: No double jeopardy bar—elements differ (attempted murder requires intent to kill; aggravated assault can be reckless under extreme indifference). |
| Admission of Officer Barr’s testimony about surveillance (lay speculation he retrieved a gun) | Officer Barr speculated beyond personal knowledge and without expert status; testimony was improper and prejudicial. | Lay testimony about video observations is permissible under Pa.R.E.701; court instructed jury to draw their own conclusions; testimony was cumulative. | Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; any error harmless given eyewitness ID and other evidence. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions | Challenges were underdeveloped and waived; alternatively, evidence did not prove all elements. | Three eyewitnesses identified Crawford as shooter; victim’s serious injuries, flight, and lack of license supported convictions. | Affirmed: Viewing evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth, evidence sufficient for all convictions. |
| Weight of the evidence/new trial request | Verdict shocked conscience: victim didn’t see the shooter fire, surveillance didn’t clearly show a gun, no gunpowder residue testing, testimonial inconsistencies. | Jury credited eyewitnesses; ballistics excluded Stokes as shooter; flight and severity of injuries supported verdict. | Affirmed: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial; verdict not against weight of evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCord v. Commonwealth, 700 A.2d 938 (Pa. Super. 1997) (double jeopardy protection extends to retrial issues where jury made findings implying acquittal)
- Vargas v. Commonwealth, 947 A.2d 777 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for double jeopardy questions is de novo)
- Baldwin v. Commonwealth, 985 A.2d 830 (Pa. 2009) (42 Pa.C.S. § 9765 governs merger—look to statutory elements to determine merger/double jeopardy implications)
- Hickson v. Commonwealth, 586 A.2d 393 (Pa. Super. 1990) (discussing malice and elements distinguishing aggravated assault and attempted homicide)
- Patrick v. Commonwealth, 933 A.2d 1043 (Pa. Super. 2007) (when victim suffers serious bodily injury, prosecution need not prove specific intent for aggravated assault)
- Clay v. Commonwealth, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (appellate review of weight claims is deferential; trial court’s discretion paramount)
- Chmiel v. Commonwealth, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (presumption that jury follows court’s instructions)
- Wilson v. Commonwealth, 147 A.3d 7 (Pa. Super. 2016) (improperly admitted evidence that is cumulative of other evidence is harmless)
- Dent v. Commonwealth, 837 A.2d 571 (Pa. Super. 2003) (flight may be probative of consciousness of guilt)
- Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1983) (double jeopardy protects against multiple punishments and successive prosecutions)