Com. v. Lewis, W.
3825 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- In 2000 William Lewis and co-conspirators robbed a Genuardi’s supermarket at gunpoint; multiple victims were bound, threatened, and three injured. Lewis fled and was arrested in North Carolina in 2014 after 14 years under a false identity.
- After a 2015 jury trial Lewis was convicted of multiple counts including numerous robberies, assaults, terroristic threats, unlawful restraint (including involuntary servitude), conspiracy, theft, and receiving stolen property. He was sentenced in 2016 to an aggregate 29.5 to 75 years (with one sentence later vacated/merged).
- At trial two co-conspirators (Sadler and Davis) gave testimony that recanted prior statements; Detective Lt. William Cahill testified about the "Code of the Street" to explain why they might recant.
- Lewis objected that Detect. Cahill’s explanation was expert-style testimony (deciphering neighborhood code language) and that the Commonwealth should have qualified Cahill as an expert and produced an expert report.
- Lewis also argued the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on how to view Sadler’s and Davis’s crimen falsi convictions. The trial court treated the latter claim as waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Lewis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Detect. Cahill’s testimony about "Code of the Street" required expert qualification and a report | Cahill’s testimony was lay/fact-based, arising from 29 years of police work and the affiant role; it helped explain recantation and was admissible under Pa.R.E. 701 | Cahill interpreted specialized, neighborhood "code" language and therefore gave expert testimony that required qualification and a pretrial report under Pa.R.E. 702 | Trial court properly admitted Cahill’s testimony as lay/fact-based; even if error, admission was harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt; affirmed |
| Whether the court erred by failing to instruct jury on how to consider co-conspirators’ crimen falsi convictions | The court noted counsel did not request a crimen falsi instruction for Sadler and expressly declined to request one; jury received other instructions about potential bias | Lewis argued the jury should have been instructed how to consider Sadler’s and Davis’s crimen falsi convictions before deliberations | Issue waived for appellate review (not raised/preserved); alternatively, no reversible error; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 738 A.2d 406 (Pa. 1999) (standard for reviewing admissibility of evidence and abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. McAleer, 748 A.2d 670 (Pa. 2000) (abuse of discretion definition)
- Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 986 A.2d 84 (Pa. 2009) (quoting standards for admission of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Cooper, 941 A.2d 655 (Pa. 2007) (framework for admissibility review)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 467 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 1983) (trial court determinations on witness credibility are for the jury)
- Commonwealth v. Nelson, 467 A.2d 638 (Pa. Super. 1983) (credibility and weight for the jury)
- Commonwealth v. Allshouse, 985 A.2d 847 (Pa. 2009) (harmless-error doctrine and appellate review standard)
- Commonwealth v. Simmons, 662 A.2d 621 (Pa. 1995) (harmless error principles)