Com. v. Livingston, G.
1749 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- On Sept. 5, 2015 security guards Jeremy Brentley and Adam Van Houten observed two men (Appellant Gene Livingston and Scott Cutler) on Belleau Drive; guards testified Livingston handed a semi-automatic handgun to Cutler, who discharged it into a building.
- Guards drew weapons; Cutler complied and dropped the gun; Livingston fled the scene; guards recovered the firearm (functioning .40-caliber) and shell casings were collected nearby; no usable fingerprints were recovered.
- Livingston had a prior nolo contendere plea to third-degree murder (2004) and lacked a license to carry a concealed firearm; charged under 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105(a)(1) and 6106(a)(1).
- Defense witnesses (including Cutler and Livingston) testified Livingston never possessed or handed a gun; video surveillance introduced did not show the gun transfer and did not definitively identify Livingston during the exchange.
- Trial court credited the security guards’ consistent eyewitness testimony over defense testimony and video gaps; Livingston was convicted and sentenced to 2½ to 5 years for possession while prohibited; court denied post-sentence weight claim.
- Superior Court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing eyewitness credibility and that the video did not compel a contrary result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether verdict was against the weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: trial court properly credited guards; testimony consistent and supported conviction | Livingston: only evidence tying him to gun were guards whose testimony conflicted with surveillance and defense witnesses; evidence "meager" | Trial court’s credibility determinations upheld; no abuse of discretion; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 744 A.2d 745 (2000) (standard for reviewing weight-of-the-evidence motions and deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 538 Pa. 410, 648 A.2d 1177 (1994) (new trial for weight is not warranted for mere conflicts in testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 467 Pa. 50, 354 A.2d 545 (1976) (appellate courts give greatest consideration to trial court’s reasons on weight claims)
- Com. v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (discusses scope of appellate review of trial court’s exercise of discretion on weight claims)
- Coker v. S.M. Flickinger Co., 533 Pa. 441, 625 A.2d 1181 (1993) (definition and limits of judicial discretion)