Com. v. Mahmud, T.
1589 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- Tariq Mahmud, a Rite Aid loss-prevention employee, was convicted by a jury of second-degree (felony) murder, robbery, and conspiracy for a September 19, 2013 robbery in which manager Jason McClay was shot and killed. Mahmud was not physically present at the scene.
- Evidence at trial included text messages showing Mahmud gave information about store safe contents, surveillance blind spots, timing, and advised co-conspirators whom to avoid; he coordinated and discussed past and planned robberies with co-defendants.
- Co-defendants White and Parks had previously robbed the store; Parks and White later pleaded guilty to third-degree murder and cooperated. Co-defendants Pultro (shooter) and Wiggins (assailant) were tried jointly with Mahmud. Parks and White testified for the Commonwealth.
- Mahmud argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support a second-degree murder conviction because accomplice and conspiratorial liability are distinct and he was not engaged in the perpetration of the felony at the time of the killing. He also challenged portions of the prosecutor’s closing argument and a detective’s testimony as improper.
- The Superior Court reviewed the evidence de novo for sufficiency, considered jury instructions and claims of prosecutorial and witness misconduct, and ultimately affirmed the judgment of sentence (life imprisonment).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree (felony) murder | Mahmud: He was not at the scene and did not engage in or facilitate the killing; conspiracy is not the same as accomplice liability so felony-murder cannot be imputed | Mahmud provided texts and guidance (safe amount, surveillance, timing), aided planning and facilitation — accomplice liability established | Affirmed: Evidence overwhelmingly supports that Mahmud acted to facilitate the robbery and therefore was an accomplice for felony-murder |
| Jury instructions (second-degree murder; accomplice vs. conspiracy) | Jury charge was confusing and improperly conflated accomplice and conspiracy liability | Trial court used instruction consistent with Lambert and standard jury instruction; no timely challenge preserved | Waived for appellate review (not raised in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)); trial court’s instruction acceptable if preserved |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (personal opinion, remarks) | Prosecutor improperly expressed personal opinions and prejudicial statements (e.g., saying he failed if jurors do not convict) | Objections were sustained/stricken in part; remarks were oratorical flair and not so prejudicial given overwhelming evidence | Waived in part (no motion for mistrial); merits rejected — remarks did not deprive defendant of fair trial |
| Detective’s testimony (“trying to get to the truth”) and related misconduct | Testimony suggested improper or prejudicial investigative conduct and warranted mistrial | Answer was not intentionally elicited, court sustained objection and struck the answer; curative instruction given at trial start | Waived (no mistrial requested) and meritless — not sufficiently prejudicial to require new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 135 A.3d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2016) (defines accomplice liability elements under Pennsylvania law)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010 (Pa. Super. 2002) (explains felony-murder imputation to all participants and jury’s role in determining whether killing furthered the felony)
- Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096 (Pa. 2012) (standards for reviewing prosecutorial misconduct claims and when remarks deny a fair trial)
- Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 77 A.3d 663 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to request curative relief or mistrial waives claim of trial error)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 134 A.3d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2016) (review standard for denial of mistrial)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 607 A.2d 764 (Pa. Super. 1992) (factors for determining when a witness’s improper remark warrants a mistrial)