Com. v. Harris, S., 2388 EDA 2015

On July 9, 2013, John Anderson was shot dead in the entryway to his apartment after a dispute involving a woman linked to Appellant Stephon Harris.
Earlier that day Harris intercepted a phone call between Anderson and Harris’s girlfriend, argued with Anderson, and said Anderson “needed to go.”
Harris, co-defendant Unique Kennedy, and others went to Anderson’s building that evening; Unique ultimately fired multiple shots that killed Anderson while Harris fled the scene with Unique.
Witnesses (the apartmentmate Hines and building owner Khardani) identified Unique as the shooter and identified Harris as present and running from the scene.
Harris was charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder; a jury convicted him of both on February 20, 2015, and he was sentenced to life without parole.
Harris appealed, arguing insufficiency of the evidence for conspiracy and for first‑degree murder (specific intent to kill); the Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict of conspiracy to commit murder	Commonwealth: evidence showed Harris and Unique agreed to kill Anderson (statements, planning, travel to the scene, flight)	Harris: he went to peacefully resolve the dispute and lacked knowledge/intent to conspire to murder	Affirmed — jury could infer an agreement and shared criminal intent from conduct before, during, and after the killing
Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree murder (specific intent to kill)	Commonwealth: multiple gunshot wounds plus Harris’s statement “Anderson has to go” and role in bringing Unique to the scene permit inference of specific intent	Harris: no proof he had specific intent; Unique claimed self‑defense	Affirmed — specific intent may be inferred from manner of killing (multiple shots) and the surrounding circumstantial evidence; credibility determinations for self‑defense were for the jury

Walls v. Commonwealth, 144 A.3d 926 (standard of review for sufficiency challenges)
Ansell v. Commonwealth, 143 A.3d 944 (evidence viewed in light most favorable to the Commonwealth)
Ford v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 547 (fact‑finder may accept or reject witness testimony)
Dantzler v. Commonwealth, 135 A.3d 1109 (elements of conspiracy)
Commonwealth v. Orie Melvin, 103 A.3d 1 (conspiracy may be inferred from conduct and circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Thomas, 65 A.3d 939 (acting together before/during/after an attack can establish unity of criminal purpose for conspiracy)
Blackham v. Commonwealth, 909 A.2d 315 (appellate court will not overturn credibility determinations)
Ovalles v. Commonwealth, 144 A.3d 957 (elements of first‑degree murder include specific intent to kill)
Yong v. Commonwealth, 120 A.3d 299 (co‑conspirator liability for overt acts in furtherance of conspiracy)
Tucker v. Commonwealth, 143 A.3d 955 (specific intent to kill may be proved by circumstantial evidence)
Hughes v. Commonwealth, 865 A.2d 761 (manner of killing, e.g., multiple gunshot wounds, supports inference of specific intent)
Forrey v. Commonwealth, 108 A.3d 895 (doubts about credibility and weight of evidence are for the jury)