Com. v. Frazier, A.
2712 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 5, 2016Background
- Aaron Frazier, on juvenile probation with GPS monitoring, cut off his GPS bracelet on August 27, 2012 and absconded; the shooting occurred within the restricted zone days later.
- On September 6, 2012, three men fired >20 shots near 241 W. Duncannon St.; Willie Withers was killed and Rashian Morris (eyewitness) identified Frazier as the shortest shooter in a red hooded sweatshirt.
- Phone records from Frazier’s MetroPCS device placed his phone near the scene around the time of the shooting and leaving the area shortly thereafter.
- At trial the Commonwealth introduced evidence of Frazier’s cutting off the GPS monitor as prior bad acts; the defense sought to admit expert testimony from Dr. Suzanne Mannes on lighting and eyewitness reliability (partially excluded).
- Jury convicted Frazier of first-degree murder and related offenses; he was sentenced to life without parole. Frazier appealed, raising challenges to (1) admission of GPS-cutting evidence, (2) a consciousness-of-guilt instruction, (3) exclusion of lighting-related expert testimony, and (4) the court’s identification instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Frazier) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of GPS-cutting as other-bad-acts evidence | Evidence showed intent, preparation, plan, opportunity and formed part of the chain of events (linked to phone evidence) | Cutting the GPS was irrelevant to the murder and highly prejudicial | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence probative for intent, premeditation, plan and natural development of the case, with limiting instruction to jury |
| Consciousness-of-guilt jury instruction | Cutting and subsequent concealment supported a flight/concealment instruction | Cutting occurred before the crime and thus could not show consciousness of guilt for the shooting | Affirmed: instruction permissible because concealment continued after the crime and other facts supported the charge; any technical inaccuracy was harmless |
| Exclusion of expert testimony about lighting effects on ID reliability | Expert testimony on various identification factors was admitted; lighting-specific testimony excluded as within lay understanding and not sufficiently shown to require expert assistance | Lighting effects are technical and beyond lay understanding; expert should have been allowed to explain impact on Morris’ ID | Affirmed: court permissibly limited expert testimony on lighting because proffer failed to show that the expert’s lighting opinions were beyond jurors’ common knowledge and the report’s conclusions were largely lay-level assertions |
| Jury instruction on eyewitness identification (defense proffer) | Court’s charge listed factors (lighting, distance, stress, exposure, weapon focus) and told jury to consider expert testimony; left factual weighing to jurors | Requested a more detailed cautionary instruction explaining how each scientific factor undermines reliability and when to treat ID with caution | Affirmed: charge as a whole was adequate, not misleading, and left credibility/weight of factors to jury; refusal to use defendant’s wording was not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tedford, 567 A.2d 610 (Pa. 1989) (prior conduct admissible to show plan, intent, or premeditation where it fits the narrative of the crime)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 92 A.3d 766 (Pa. 2014) (eyewitness-identification expert testimony no longer per se inadmissible; admissibility governed by evidentiary rules)
- Commonwealth v. Paddy, 800 A.2d 294 (Pa. 2002) (a person cannot be conscious of guilt for a crime not yet committed)
- Commonwealth v. Bruce, 717 A.2d 1033 (Pa. Super. 1998) (flight/concealment instruction appropriate where defendant commits a crime, knows he is a suspect, and conceals himself)
- Commonwealth v. Prosdocimo, 578 A.2d 1273 (Pa. 1990) (jury-charge errors assessed for whether they control the outcome; courts avoid reversal for technical inaccuracies when charge is adequate overall)
- Commonwealth v. Alicia, 92 A.3d 753 (Pa. 2014) (expert testimony admissible when it assists the trier of fact beyond the understanding of the average juror)
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 854 A.2d 465 (Pa. 2004) (standards for admitting expert evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 911 A.2d 576 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court not required to give every requested instruction; reversal only if refusal prejudiced defendant)