Com. v. Ebo, M., Com. v. Ebo, M. No. 92 WDA 2016

Background

May 16, 2011: Todd Mattox was shot and killed outside an apartment complex; eyewitness Saday Robinson later identified Matthew Ebo and Thaddeus Crumbley as the shooters.
Multiple photo arrays were administered over months; Robinson did not identify the defendants initially, identified them in July 2012, and testified at trial.
Firearms evidence linked .40 caliber shell casings from the Mattox scene to shell casings recovered in a June 2, 2011 Swissvale shootout involving Crumbley; other ballistic links were inconclusive.
Both defendants were tried jointly, convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses, and sentenced (Ebo received life plus consecutive terms including mandatory minimums under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712).
Post-trial: Robinson gave an unsworn 2014 statement to a defense investigator recanting her ID; at a 2015 evidentiary hearing she re-affirmed her in-court identification and said the 2014 statement was false (made from fear/inducement).
On appeal the Superior Court affirmed convictions, denied a new trial based on the recantation, upheld rulings admitting identification and 404(b) evidence, but vacated statutory mandatory minimums under Alleyne and remanded for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Ebo/Crumbley)	Held
After-discovered recantation (new trial)	The recantation is not reliable and trial testimony stands; no new-trial relief needed.	Robinson's unsworn recantation to defense investigator proves ID unreliable and warrants a new trial.	Trial court credited Robinson's in-court testimony and recantation of the unsworn statement; no abuse of discretion — new trial denied.
Admission of subsequent-shooting evidence (404(b))	Evidence of June 2, 2011 Swissvale shooting is admissible to prove identity (ballistic links) and has probative value outweighing prejudice.	Evidence relates only to Crumbley and is prejudicial to Ebo in a joint trial; should be excluded as improper other-bad-acts evidence.	Evidence admitted for identity; trial court properly balanced probative value and gave (but defense declined) limiting instruction; no abuse of discretion.
Pretrial photo-array and in-court ID suppression	Identification was reliable under the totality of circumstances (good opportunity to view, degree of attention, certainty); suggestiveness not shown.	Photo arrays were highly suggestive / tainted (media, community talk, police suggestion), so pretrial and in-court IDs should have been suppressed.	Court found no undue suggestiveness and independent basis for ID (clear view, duration, certainty, corroboration); suppression denied.
Mandatory minimum sentencing under § 9712	N/A (Commonwealth conceded remand appropriate after precedent)	Mandatory minimums imposed under § 9712 are unconstitutional after Alleyne because judge, not jury, found facts increasing minimums.	Mandatory minimum terms at counts 3 and 6 vacated; remanded for resentencing in light of Alleyne and controlling Pennsylvania precedent.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Rivera, 939 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 2007) (four-prong test for after-discovered evidence/new trial).
Commonwealth v. Henry, 706 A.2d 313 (Pa. 1997) (recantation testimony is inherently unreliable; trial court credibility determinations deferable).
Commonwealth v. Padillas, 997 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 2010) (new-trial likelihood standard for after-discovered evidence).
Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (holding § 9712 mandatory-minimum scheme unconstitutional post-Alleyne).
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimums are elements that must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).
Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (standards for joinder and severance; limiting instructions may cure prejudice in joint trials).
Commonwealth v. Jaynes, 135 A.3d 606 (Pa. Super. 2016) (identification admissibility; suggestiveness and totality of circumstances).