Com. v. Lewis, T.
2308 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 24, 2017Background
- On May 22, 2006, Teron Lewis and co-conspirator Omega Peoples confronted Odell Cannon; a gunfight followed and Cannon was shot multiple times. Lewis was later arrested and convicted by a jury of attempted first‑degree murder, aggravated assault (including with a deadly weapon), and related conspiracy counts.
- Lewis’s direct appeal was previously waived for failure to file a timely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; he later filed a timely PCRA petition and was allowed to pursue a direct appeal nunc pro tunc.
- At trial, Commonwealth witness Rahlik Gore testified that Cannon told Gore he wanted Lewis shot, shortly before the shooting. Lewis moved in limine to exclude that testimony under Pa.R.E. 403; the trial court denied the motion.
- Gore also used and defined the slang term “young boy” to describe relationships among principals; defense counsel objected initially to not knowing what Gore would say but did not lodge a timely, specific objection to the substance of Gore’s definition or later to repeated uses of the term in closing.
- On appeal Lewis argued (1) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Gore’s testimony about Cannon’s statement and (2) the court erred in allowing and defining “young boy” because its prejudicial effect outweighed probative value.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Lewis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Gore’s testimony that Cannon asked Gore to shoot Lewis (Pa.R.E. 403) | Testimony is relevant to motive and fits Commonwealth’s retaliatory‑motive theory; probative value outweighs any unfair prejudice | Testimony had little probative value to Lewis’s state of mind and was unfairly prejudicial (could suggest retaliation) | Court affirmed admission: trial court did not abuse discretion; testimony was relevant to motive and not unfairly prejudicial |
| Admission/definition of slang term “young boy” | Term was explanatory and aided jury understanding of relationships; no prejudicial effect | Term suggested Lewis was Peoples’ protégé and part of a conspiracy to kill Cannon; prejudicial | Issue waived for appellate review due to lack of timely, specific objection; even if preserved, no relief warranted because definition aided clarity and was not unduly suggestive |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hoover, 107 A.3d 723 (discussing abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Laird, 988 A.2d 618 (standard for reversing evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (limits on appellate reversal for exercises of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Randolph, 873 A.2d 1277 (abuse of discretion when law is misapplied)
- Commonwealth v. Rigler, 412 A.2d 846 (all evidence is prejudicial to some extent; Rule 403 targets unfair prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Bedford, 50 A.3d 707 (preservation requirement: specific objection needed to preserve evidentiary issues)
- Commonwealth v. Galloway, 771 A.2d 65 (Rule 403 burden on appellant)
- Commonwealth v. Spiewak, 617 A.2d 696 (definition of relevance)