271 A.3d 393
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- On December 24, 2016, Marie was shot ten times and killed inside her South Philadelphia convenience store; the shooter fled and was later identified as Maurice Green by investigators.
- Green was arrested December 28, 2016; his custody interview was audio/video recorded and transcribed; he was Mirandized, requested counsel, questioning ceased, and hours later he knocked to reinitiate contact and waived Miranda before making inculpatory statements he later denied at trial.
- The Commonwealth sought and the trial court admitted Pa.R.E. 404(b) evidence about a prior October 2015 shooting at Levonya Ladson’s door (the “Ladson incident”), arguing a common scheme of retaliating against grandmothers of adversaries; ballistics showed different firearms were used in the two incidents and no charges were filed for Ladson.
- Green was tried (after a mistrial in a first trial), convicted on December 12, 2019 of first‑degree murder and related offenses, and sentenced to life; he appealed raising suppression and 404(b) challenges.
- The Superior Court affirmed denial of the suppression motion (finding Green voluntarily waived Miranda after reinitiating contact), but reversed and remanded for a new trial because admission of the Ladson-incident evidence was more prejudicial than probative and was offered for propensity rather than a proper non‑propensity purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Green's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detectives violated Edwards/Minnick by reinitiating interrogation after invocation of counsel | Jenkins did not improperly reinitiate; detectives ceased homicide questioning after invocation and Green later voluntarily knocked to talk and validly waived Miranda | Jenkins’s statement that Green could summon him improperly reinitiated contact after Green invoked counsel, so later statements were product of forbidden reinitiation | Denied: Court held Green voluntarily reinitiated contact and knowingly waived Miranda; suppression denial affirmed |
| Whether trial court erred admitting prior bad acts (Ladson incident) under Pa.R.E. 404(b) | Ladson evidence shows common scheme/plan (retribution against grandmothers) and is probative of motive/identity | Ladson incident is dissimilar (different location, different firearm, victim unharmed), remote in time, uncharged, and served only to show propensity and unfairly prejudice the jury | Reversed: Admission was improper — probative value outweighed by prejudice; evidence used for propensity not a proper common‑scheme showing; new trial ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial suspects must be advised of rights and may invoke counsel to stop interrogation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (once counsel is requested, interrogation must cease until counsel is present)
- Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1990) (police may not reinitiate interrogation after a request for counsel unless counsel is present)
- Commonwealth v. Rush, 646 A.2d 557 (Pa. 1994) (other‑acts evidence must display an unusual, signature‑like similarity to establish identity)
- Commonwealth v. Ross, 57 A.3d 85 (Pa. Super. 2012) (limitations on using other crimes evidence to avoid stripping presumption of innocence)
- Commonwealth v. Tyson, 119 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2015) (factors for common‑plan analysis, including time lapse and distinctive similarities)
- Commonwealth v. Dillon, 925 A.2d 131 (Pa. 2007) (unfair prejudice defined; relevant evidence not excluded merely because harmful)
- Commonwealth v. Melendez‑Rodriguez, 856 A.2d 1278 (Pa. Super. 2004) (other crimes evidence inadmissible solely to show propensity)
- Commonwealth v. Semenza, 127 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2015) (uncharged conduct generally inadmissible absent signature similarity)
- Commonwealth v. Champney, 65 A.3d 386 (Pa. 2013) (Edwards/Minnick principles protect against police badgering post‑invocation)