Com. v. Hess, G.
Com. v. Hess, G. No. 398 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 17, 2017Background
- Gregory Allen Hess was charged in multiple "hire-to-kill" schemes: initially for soliciting the murder of Calvin Jones (to prevent testimony), later for conspiring to kill Michael Crampton (who had been recruited and later cooperated), and for soliciting inmates to kill Crampton. Trials on related OTNs were consolidated at the trial court level.
- Crampton and other inmates became cooperating witnesses after being offered benefits; recorded phone calls and in-person meetings were part of the Commonwealth’s proof. Appellant’s son Toby also testified regarding calls, a prepaid phone, and photographs requested by Hess.
- A jury convicted Hess of: (1) criminal conspiracy to commit first-degree murder (of Crampton), (2) criminal use of a communication facility, and (3) criminal solicitation to commit first-degree murder (of Jones). He was sentenced to an aggregate 12–24 years’ imprisonment.
- Hess filed post-sentence motions alleging improper consolidation/severance, insufficiency of the evidence, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and that consecutive sentencing was an abuse of discretion; the trial court denied relief and this appeal followed.
- The Superior Court affirmed, rejecting Hess’s challenges to consolidation, sufficiency, weight, and sentencing (finding some claims waived where procedural preservation or Rule 1925/2119(f) requirements were unmet).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Hess) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Consolidation/severance of OTNs | Consolidation proper because offenses were part of a connected sequence and evidence was admissible to tell the "complete story." | Trial court abused discretion by refusing severance; joinder confused jury and prejudiced Hess. | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; crimes were related in scheme, jurors could separate evidence, and no prejudice shown. |
| 2. Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence (cooperator testimony, recorded calls, documents, money transfers) proved solicitation, conspiracy, and use of communication facility beyond a reasonable doubt. | Evidence was insufficient; Hess’s Rule 1925(b) was conclusory and waived the claim. | Affirmed — claim waived for lack of specificity; alternatively, the record supports conviction under sufficiency standards. |
| 3. Weight of the evidence | Jury reasonably credited Commonwealth witnesses; trial judge properly denied new trial after weighing credibility. | Verdict against the weight because key witnesses had motives to lie (crimen falsi convictions, benefits). | Affirmed — trial court’s discretionary denial of weight challenge was not an abuse; verdict did not shock the conscience. |
| 4. Consecutive sentencing | Sentencing within court’s discretion and lawful. | Consecutive sentences were excessive/abused discretion. | Not reached on merits — claim waived for failure to preserve at sentencing/post-sentence and omission of Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). Judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wholaver v. Commonwealth, 989 A.2d 883 (Pa. 2010) (standard for joinder/severance review)
- Burton v. Commonwealth, 770 A.2d 771 (Pa. Super. 2001) (tests for joinder admissibility and prejudice)
- Lark v. Commonwealth, 543 A.2d 491 (Pa. 1988) ("complete story"/res gestae rationale for admitting related offenses)
- Castillo v. Commonwealth, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (Rule 1925(b) specificity requirement for sufficiency claims)
- Clay v. Commonwealth, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (standards for weight-of-the-evidence review)
- Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for invoking appellate review of discretionary sentencing)