Com. v. Martin, E.
Com. v. Martin, E. No. 243 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 12, 2017Background
- On Sept. 19, 2014 the victim (T.S.) was approached and assaulted on Frontenac Street by Edward Martin and two co-defendants; they took the victim’s phone, charger, TransPass, headphones and $5.00. The victim called 911 and police tracked the phone to where the three defendants were stopped and arrested. The victim identified all three at the scene and the recovered items were linked to the defendants.
- Martin was tried jointly with two co-defendants; a jury convicted Martin of receiving stolen property, simple assault, intimidation of a witness (18 Pa.C.S. §4952(a)(1)), robbery, and conspiracy. He was sentenced to an aggregate 3–6 years’ imprisonment on Jan. 5, 2016.
- Martin appealed raising four claims: (1) improper lay-opinion testimony from Detective Ortiz about the victim’s mental state; (2) improper bolstering/prior consistent statement when Officer Lewis read from his written statement; (3) insufficient evidence for the intimidation conviction (arguing the proper charge was retaliation of a witness); and (4) trial court’s response to a jury question by sending a property receipt rather than telling jurors their recollection controls.
- The trial court sustained objections to Detective Ortiz’s medical characterizations and repeatedly limited her testimony to observable behavior; Martin did not suggest a different remedy on appeal.
- Officer Lewis’s initial reading of his statement was objected to, but the court allowed the statement to be used to refresh his recollection after the proper foundation; Martin did not renew his objection after the foundation was laid.
- The court held the evidence supported an intimidation conviction under §4952(a)(1) because the victim testified the assault/robbery was motivated by the defendants accusing him of “snitching.” The jury’s possession of the property receipt exhibit was challenged on appeal but waived for failure to include the exhibit in the certified record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admission of lay opinion about victim’s mental state | Commonwealth: Detective’s description of observed behavior was admissible lay testimony | Martin: Detective’s statements (‘delayed’, ‘mental problems’) were expert medical opinions requiring qualification | Court found objections sustained at trial; testimony was limited to observable behavior and no relief requested on appeal — claim fails |
| 2. Officer reading from written statement (bolstering/prior consistent) | Commonwealth: reading/recital used to refresh recollection and provide specific details | Martin: reading amounted to improper bolstering/prior consistent statement | Court: trial court sustained initial objection but allowed proper refreshment of recollection after foundation; no further objection — claim fails |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence for intimidation conviction | Martin: evidence supports only retaliation theory, not intimidation as charged under §4952(a)(3) | Commonwealth: testimony supports intimidation to prevent reporting (§4952(a)(1)) because defendants attacked the victim for “snitching” | Court: conviction under §4952(a)(1) was supported by the victim’s testimony; Martin’s §4952(a)(3) argument fails |
| 4. Court’s response to jury question (providing property receipt) | Martin: jury should have been instructed that jurors’ recollection controls, not given the property receipt (which listed Martin as ‘From Whom Taken’) | Commonwealth: exhibit was admitted evidence; jurors may inspect admitted exhibits | Court: claim waived because Martin failed to include the exhibit in the certified record, so appellate review is precluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mendez, 74 A.3d 256 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 57 A.3d 74 (Pa. Super. 2012) (reversible error requires prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Tyack, 123 A.3d 254 (Pa. Super. 2015) (defining prejudice for evidentiary errors)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501 (Pa. 2005) (harmless error doctrine and burden on Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544 (Pa. Super. 2011) (sufficiency review standard)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 1139 (Pa. 2012) (testimony reliability as sufficiency challenge)
- Smith v. Smith, 637 A.2d 622 (Pa. Super. 1993) (appellate court cannot consider matters not in the certified record; failure to include record waives issue)