Com. v. Giddings, G.
3493 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 3, 2018Background
- In March 2012 Giddings and others entered the Budd plant (a locked warehouse) to remove copper; they did not have permission to be there or to take materials.
- During loading, an argument arose over splitting the copper; Giddings told co-defendants they would take the whole load.
- Eyewitnesses and co-conspirators placed Giddings on the ramp pointing a 9mm handgun and firing as a vehicle carrying the decedent attempted to leave; the vehicle crashed through a garage door and the decedent later died of a gunshot wound.
- Giddings gave a statement admitting he fired at the vehicle and discarded the gun; shell casings and a projectile were recovered at the ramp.
- A jury convicted Giddings of second-degree murder (felony murder), burglary, robbery, conspiracy, and firearm offenses; he received life imprisonment for second-degree murder.
- Giddings’ PCRA petition alleging counsel failed to file an appeal was granted, restoring appellate rights nunc pro tunc; he appeals sufficiency and weight-of-the-evidence claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Giddings) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — felony murder (second-degree murder) | Evidence supported that Giddings set robbery in motion, fired at fleeing vehicle, and therefore is liable for death under felony-murder doctrine | Argued Commonwealth failed to prove he engaged in burglary/robbery or that death occurred during a felony | Court: Affirmed — viewing evidence in Commonwealth's favor, proof sufficed that Giddings participated in burglary/robbery and shot the victim during the felony |
| Sufficiency — burglary, robbery, conspiracy | Co-conspirator testimony, defendant’s admissions, and physical evidence established entry with intent, agreement to steal, and active participation in the robbery | Contended at most presence at scene; lacked requisite mens rea or principal/accomplice status | Court: Affirmed — evidence supported intent to steal, concerted action, and accomplice/conspiratorial liability |
| Weight of the evidence | (Commonwealth) Jury credibility determinations supported verdict; conflicts were for jury to resolve | Claimed verdict was against the weight because evidence only showed presence, not commission of felony | Court: Waived on appeal (no post-sentence motion) and meritless; even on merits jury’s verdict did not shock the conscience |
| Preservation & procedural relief | N/A | Sought restoration of appellate rights via PCRA due to counsel’s failure to file appeal; did not seek reinstatement of post-sentence motion | Court: PCRA granted; appellate rights reinstated nunc pro tunc; weight claim nonetheless waived because post-sentence motion rights were not reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Commonwealth, 35 A.3d 1206 (Pa. 2012) (defines ‘perpetration of a felony’ for felony-murder analysis)
- Antidormi v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sufficiency-review standard)
- Clay v. Commonwealth, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (standard for weight-of-the-evidence challenges)
- Mucci v. Commonwealth, 143 A.3d 399 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appellate review of weight claims is review of trial court discretion)
- Robinson v. Commonwealth, 936 A.2d 107 (Pa. Super. 2007) (robbery can be complete even if theft not successfully finished)