Com. v. Lucas, W.
2531 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 7, 2017Background
- On Aug. 5–6, 2013 two separate incidents occurred near 62nd & Elmwood in Philadelphia: a robbery of D.R. (age 19) at gunpoint and, the next night, a robbery and rape of S.J. (age 17). Both victims described a similarly dressed Black male with facial hair.
- Police arrested William Lucas after a detective-led street showing and recovered clothing matching a victim’s description from Lucas’s residence. DNA testing from the rape exam matched a male Y-chromosome consistent with Lucas or his paternal male relatives.
- The Commonwealth consolidated the two cases for trial (excluding firearms counts), arguing a high correlation in details; the court granted consolidation.
- At trial S.J. initially did not identify Lucas from one photo array but later identified him from a second array after a detective made comments about the photo age and later said, after she chose, that she had picked the “right guy.” Defense moved for mistrial and suppression; court denied both and gave cautionary jury instructions about identification.
- Lucas was convicted on all counts (jury on most counts; bench on firearms), received an aggregate sentence of 35–85 years, and appealed raising consolidation, Brady/due-process suppression, cross-examination limits, and discretionary sentencing claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consolidation of two informations | Commonwealth: facts show high correlation (time, place, victims, method), evidence of one would be admissible in trial of the other | Lucas: incidents were distinct (separate nights; one escalated to sexual assault) and joinder was unduly prejudicial | Affirmed: consolidation proper under Rule 582 and Newman; jury instructions cured any risk of confusion |
| Brady / suppression of S.J.’s ID | Lucas: police tainted photo-array ID and concealed that conduct, violating Brady and requiring suppression/mistrial | Commonwealth: no evidence prosecution concealed anything; detective’s remarks were not exculpatory and did not create impermissible suggestiveness | Denied: no Brady violation; totality of circumstances showed no substantial likelihood of misidentification; curative jury instruction adequate |
| Scope of cross‑examination about ID procedures | Lucas: defense should probe police ID policy, double‑blind procedures, and influence on witness reliability | Commonwealth: questions beyond witness’s personal knowledge and sought expert-type opinion; trial court sustained objections; no offer of proof | Waived on appeal for failure to offer proof; alternatively, court properly excluded opinion-type questions because officer was not an expert |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence (35–85 yrs) | Lucas: aggregate consecutive guideline sentences are excessive, failed to consider rehabilitation and individualized factors, and lack adequate on-the-record reasoning | Commonwealth: record (two PSIs, defendant’s long violent record, guideline calculations) supports sentence; court explained reasoning | Affirmed: sentencing court considered PSIs and statutory factors; sentence within or below aggregated guideline exposure and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Newman v. Commonwealth, 598 A.2d 275 (Pa. 1991) (consolidation requires high correlation in details / modus operandi)
- Rush v. Commonwealth, 646 A.2d 557 (Pa. 1994) (factors for similarity: elapsed time, geographic proximity, manner of commission)
- Lark v. Commonwealth, 543 A.2d 491 (Pa. 1988) (consolidation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Treiber v. Commonwealth, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (elements of Brady claim articulated)
- Devers v. Commonwealth, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (presumption sentencing court considered PSI and relevant character information)
- Andrews v. Commonwealth, 720 A.2d 764 (Pa. Super. 1998) (lengthy consecutive sentences not necessarily excessive where defendant poses threat and has significant record)