Com. v. Dekeyser, Z.
Com. v. Dekeyser, Z. No. 675 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- On Dec. 12, 2013, Dailyl Jones (the victim) was found shot in his car and later died from a gunshot wound to the back; drugs and a white iPhone were recovered from the vehicle.
- Phone records and a Facebook-posted phone number linked the white iPhone to George Brown; calls from Brown to the victim occurred minutes before the shooting.
- Eyewitness Danzelle Chase gave inconsistent statements: initially implicating a man from Philadelphia, then in a later statement and at the preliminary hearing identifying Appellant Zhaire Dekeyser as the shooter, but at trial recanted that identification.
- The Commonwealth’s theory was that Brown and Dekeyser arranged a fake drug deal to rob the victim; Chase testified he saw a tussle and heard Brown yell for Dekeyser to shoot, and that Dekeyser fired.
- A jury convicted Dekeyser of first-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy; the trial court sentenced him to life without parole. Dekeyser appealed, raising sufficiency, evidentiary, instruction, and sentencing claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Dekeyser) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of evidence for murder, robbery, conspiracy | Evidence (including Chase's prior statements, phone records, drugs in car, and circumstances) supports conviction | Chase’s recantation at trial rendered identification unreliable; evidence insufficient | Affirmed: viewed in Commonwealth’s favor, evidence (including prior inconsistent statements) sufficient |
| 2. Admission that George Brown was convicted | Evidence about Brown’s involvement/conviction was relevant to guilt and narrative | Admission was prejudicial and an abuse of discretion | No reversible error: defense elicited/introduced the testimony, so claim fails |
| 3. Commonwealth’s examination of Chase as a hostile witness | Prosecutor properly treated Chase as hostile to admit prior inconsistent statements | Trial court abused discretion by allowing hostile-exam | Waived: Dekeyser failed to preserve claim by timely objection in trial court |
| 4. Publishing part of jury instructions during deliberations | Clarification given by trial court was proper | Court selectively published impermissible portion, warranting reversal | Waived: no timely objection at trial; claim not preserved on appeal |
| 5. Sentencing — failure to consider youth/Miller factors under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102.1 | Sentencing court considered appropriate factors; life without parole permitted after discretion | Court failed to consider statutory/Miller mitigating factors for juvenile | Waived: challenge to discretionary aspects of sentence not raised at sentencing or by post-sentence motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 1139 (Pa. 2012) (prior inconsistent statements may be considered in sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Karkaria, 625 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1993) (reviewer will not disturb jury credibility determinations absent patent unreliability)
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 80 A.3d 1186 (Pa. 2013) (conspirator liability for co-conspirators’ natural and probable consequences)
- Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; probative vs. prejudicial balance)
- Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732 (Pa. Super. 2012) (elements of criminal conspiracy)
- Commonwealth v. Seagraves, 103 A.3d 839 (Pa. Super. 2014) (challenges to sentencing discretion characterized as discretionary-aspects claims require preservation)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discretionary-aspect sentencing claims waived without post-sentence motion)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles invalidated)