Com. v. Edward, A.
1326 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- On May 4, 2014, Andre Edward (Appellant) encountered victim Byram Rogers at a gas station; a prior confrontation and Appellant’s relationship with Rogers’ daughter preceded the incident.
- After a brief altercation, Appellant left in a Chevrolet Suburban; Rogers was later followed by that Suburban toward his home.
- At Rogers’ home Appellant allegedly fired multiple rounds; 14 fired cartridge casings (FCCs) were recovered and ballistics matched them to a single weapon. No firearm was recovered linking Appellant to the scene.
- A bystander’s vehicle was struck by bullets; no physical injuries were reported. Commonwealth introduced a certificate indicating Appellant was not licensed to carry a firearm that day.
- Following a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of attempted murder, aggravated assault, related firearms offenses, recklessly endangering another person, and criminal mischief, and sentenced to an aggregate 8–19 years’ imprisonment plus probation.
- Appellant appealed, arguing sufficiency of the evidence (identification and specific intent); the Superior Court affirmed, finding waiver and that eyewitness testimony sufficed in any event.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict Appellant of the shootings | Commonwealth: Victim’s eyewitness ID, ballistics linking all FCCs to one gun, and non‑licensure certificate support convictions | Edward: No physical gun connected to him; inconsistent 911 descriptions; delays in reporting; eyewitness credibility questioned | Affirmed. Appellant’s general sufficiency claim was waived for lack of specificity; alternatively, eyewitness ID and other evidence were sufficient |
| Specific intent for attempted murder and aggravated assault | Commonwealth: Evidence of firing multiple rounds at victim supports intent to kill or cause serious injury | Edward: Shots were not close-range and some fired through a vehicle window, showing intent to intimidate rather than kill | Affirmed. Trial court’s analysis supports finding sufficient evidence of requisite intent |
| Preservation/adequacy of Rule 1925(b) statement | Commonwealth: Appellant failed to specify elements challenged; preserves nothing | Edward: Argued general insufficiency on appeal | Held: General sufficiency challenge was inadequate and thus waived; appellate brief also lacked legal authority which compounds waiver |
| Sufficiency review standard re: eyewitness ID | Commonwealth: One positive eyewitness ID can support conviction | Edward: Challenged eyewitness credibility due to prior convictions and delay in reporting | Held: A single positive eyewitness identification is legally adequate to support conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Garang, 9 A.3d 237 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Rule 1925(b) specificity required for sufficiency challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2001) (appellate court cannot guess issues when Rule 1925(b) is vague)
- Commonwealth v. Wilder, 393 A.2d 927 (Pa. Super. 1978) (one witness’s positive identification can support a conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Janda, 14 A.3d 147 (Pa. Super. 2011) (failure to cite law or evidence in brief may constitute waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Borrin, 80 A.3d 1219 (Pa. 2013) (written sentencing order controls when discrepancy exists)