Com. v. Leamy, D.
Com. v. Leamy, D. No. 2637 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 16, 2017Background
- April 18, 2013: A fistfight occurred between Donovan Leamy (Appellant) and Tyree Gibbons; Leamy has distinctive facial tattoos and is associated with a group called “Splash Life.”
- That evening, after tweets by Leamy about the earlier fight, two masked shooters fired on Gibbons’ companions; Justin Tift was shot multiple times and severely injured.
- Gibbons told police he recognized Leamy (facial tattoos visible through mask cutouts), identified him in a photo array, and signed a written statement implicating Leamy; at trial Gibbons recanted and claimed no memory.
- No gun was recovered or gunshot residue found on Leamy, but shell casings were recovered at the scene; Leamy presented alibi witnesses whose testimony the trial court found inconsistent and not credible.
- Leamy waived a jury; the court convicted him of attempted murder, recklessly endangering another person, and a firearms offense; he was sentenced to 12–27 years. Leamy appealed arguing insufficiency of the evidence as to identity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove Leamy was one of the shooters | Commonwealth: Gibbons’ pretrial identification, motive (the earlier fight), matching description, incriminating tweets, and the court’s credibility findings support conviction | Leamy: No gun recovered, no gunshot residue, shooters wore masks so ID unreliable, identification was speculative and based on motive alone | Affirmed. Viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor, circumstantial evidence plus Gibbons’ signed statement and photo ID were sufficient; identity was a credibility/weight issue for the finder of fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 833 A.2d 260 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010 (Pa. Super. 2002) (sufficiency-review principles and prosecutor may rely on circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Cain, 906 A.2d 1242 (Pa. Super. 2006) (uncertainty in eyewitness ID is for the fact‑finder and concerns weight, not sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Minnis, 458 A.2d 231 (Pa. Super. 1983) (same principle on eyewitness identification weight vs. sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Lively, 610 A.2d 7 (Pa. 1992) (admissibility of prior written, signed inconsistent statements as substantive evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Ly, 599 A.2d 613 (Pa. 1991) (police testimony may recount pretrial identifications when witness is present and subject to cross-examination)