Com. v. Howard, R.
Com. v. Howard, R. No. 346 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 16, 2017Background
- On July 11–12, 2011, a shooting on the 4500 block of Hurley Street wounded Latisha Dudley (shot in the stomach) and Omar Green (pellet wounds); Howard was arrested at the scene after a witness identified him in a photo array.
- Troy Taylor (aka Lionel Tyson) lived at 4526 Hurley St.; he testified and later pled guilty to conspiracy and attempted murder; he implicated Howard but also identified Howard in a photo array.
- No firearm or ballistic evidence was recovered from the house; DNA/latent-print testing on shotgun shells was inconclusive.
- A jury convicted Raymond Howard of two counts of attempted murder, aggravated assault counts, firearms offenses, conspiracy to commit murder, and possession of an instrument of crime.
- Trial court sentenced Howard to consecutive prison terms (including 10–20 years for attempted murder and 10–20 years for conspiracy to commit murder). Howard appealed raising sufficiency, weight, evidentiary/cross-examination limits, and jury-instruction claims.
- The Superior Court affirmed: evidence (including Taylor handing Howard the shotgun, statements at the scene, and wounds to vital body parts) supported intent and conspiracy; evidentiary rulings and denial of missing-witness/evidence instructions were not an abuse of discretion or waived.
Issues
| Issue | Howard's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder | Evidence did not prove specific intent to kill or premeditation | Shooter testimony, Taylor handing gun to Howard, Howard’s statements and firing at vital parts supported specific intent | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to infer intent to kill |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy | No proof of an agreement between Howard and Taylor | Taylor handed Howard shotgun and directed him to shoot; overt act occurred | Affirmed — agreement and overt act adequately shown |
| Weight of the evidence | Verdicts were against the greater weight of evidence | Trial court credited Commonwealth witnesses; verdicts not shocking | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion denying new trial |
| Limits on cross-examination of key witnesses (forensic analyst & co-conspirator Taylor) | Wanted to cross-examine analyst re: prior DNA recoveries; wanted to impeach Taylor with guideline numbers showing a big sentencing discount | Defense stipulated to the analyst’s report (waiving cross-exam); court allowed impeachment of Taylor as to bias/leniency but excluded specific guideline numbers to avoid informing jury of penalties | Affirmed — analyst claim waived; court did not abuse discretion in limiting sentencing-guideline detail |
| Missing-witness / missing-evidence jury instructions | Police knew identities of 911 callers and did not produce certain witnesses (Omar Green, others); request for adverse-inference instructions | Commonwealth conducted searches and could not locate witnesses; names/addresses were discretionary discovery and defense did not seek them pretrial | Affirmed — claim waived for inadequate briefing and, on merits, court reasonably refused instructions (no exclusive control or bad faith shown) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Best, 120 A.3d 329 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 955 A.2d 441 (Pa. Super. 2008) (specific intent for attempted murder may be inferred from circumstances and conduct)
- Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 860 A.2d 102 (Pa. 2004) (use of deadly weapon on vital part supports inference of intent to kill)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (standard for reviewing weight-of-the-evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 664 A.2d 570 (Pa. Super. 1995) (requirements for invoking missing-witness adverse-inference instruction)