Com. v. Davis, F.
143 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 13, 2017Background
- On Sept. 11, 2011, Christopher Lee was shot and killed during an apparent robbery while playing dice on a Philadelphia corner; Appellant (Davis) was identified as the shooter and Kingwood as an accomplice.
- Ballistics later tied a gun recovered in an unrelated domestic assault to the homicide; photo arrays were shown to eyewitnesses Dontay Chestnut and Kenneth Perry, who identified Davis over a year after the shooting.
- Davis and Kingwood were arrested in February 2013; they were tried jointly after the trial court denied a severance motion. Kingwood gave a pretrial statement implicating himself and describing a second man (redactions were made).
- At trial, eyewitnesses and police testified; the jury convicted Davis of second-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, weapons offenses, and PIC; Davis received a mandatory life sentence for murder.
- Post-sentence motions were denied; Davis appealed, raising weight-of-the-evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, severance/Bruton/redaction, and admission of prior police contact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davis) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight of the evidence | Identifications were weak: made >1 year later, witnesses didn’t know Davis, descriptions didn’t fit; verdict shocks justice | Jury weighed credibility and identification reliability; trial court instructed jury on eyewitness factors | Denied — no abuse of discretion; weight challenges are for jury and verdict did not shock the conscience |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (remarks about not making an "honest living") | Prosecutor improperly commented on Davis’s employment/status to inflame jury, warranting mistrial | Remarks were permissible oratorical flair tied to evidence that defendants armed themselves to rob victims | Denied — remarks during opening were within permissible latitude and did not deprive Davis of a fair trial |
| Severance / redacted co-defendant statement (Bruton issue) | Redactions left contextual implications that pointed to Davis as the shooter; severance required | Redactions were proper (used neutral terms), limiting instruction given, and other evidence linked Davis permissibly | Denied — no Bruton violation; redacted confession plus other evidence permissibly created contextual implication |
| Admission of prior police contact testimony | Officer’s testimony about prior contact near Camac Street was irrelevant and prejudicial (smearing character) | Trial court limited testimony; Davis failed to timely preserve a relevance/prejudice objection on record | Waived — Davis did not preserve the specific relevance/prejudice claim at trial; appellate review barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2011) (standard for weight-of-the-evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Handfield, 34 A.3d 187 (Pa. Super. 2011) (abuse of discretion defined)
- Commonwealth v. Cain, 29 A.3d 3 (Pa. Super. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 854 A.2d 440 (Pa. 2004) (credibility and weight for factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 860 A.2d 102 (Pa. 2004) (weight of evidence is for jury)
- Commonwealth v. Judy, 978 A.2d 1015 (Pa. Super. 2009) (mistrial as extreme remedy; prejudice analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Parker, 919 A.2d 943 (Pa. 2007) (opening statements not evidence; reasonable latitude in argument)
- Commonwealth v. Holley, 945 A.2d 241 (Pa. Super. 2008) (prosecutorial misconduct requires unavoidable prejudice to warrant relief)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (inadmissibility of non-testifying co-defendant confessions that expressly implicate defendant)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (redactions that leave obvious blanks can be functionally Bruton violations)
- Commonwealth v. James, 66 A.3d 771 (Pa. Super. 2013) (distinguishing facially incriminating confessions from contextual implication)
- Commonwealth v. Cannon, 22 A.3d 210 (Pa. 2011) (contextual implication doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (presumption that jury follows limiting instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Presbury, 665 A.2d 825 (Pa. Super. 1995) (severance standards; conspiracy favors joint trials)
- Commonwealth v. Bennie, 508 A.2d 1211 (Pa. Super. 1986) (prejudice threshold for severance)
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 141 A.3d 512 (Pa. Super. 2016) (issues not raised below are waived)