Com. v. Matos, C.
Com. v. Matos, C. No. 2756 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 15, 2017Background
- On June 30, 2013, a masked man robbed Claude’s minimarket in Philadelphia; the clerk Hector Otanez believed the robber had a gun and handed over about $90. The robber ran; officers stopped a fleeing Appellant, recovered $88 and a paint roller from his person, and returned him to the store minutes later. Otanez signed a written statement at the station identifying Appellant as the robber.
- At bench trial Otanez testified inconsistently: he denied seeing the robber’s face at trial and said he could not identify the robber, but admitted to signing the earlier statement; Officer Bowe testified Appellant fled from the scene, discarded matching cash, and was the person he stopped.
- Appellant was convicted of robbery and related offenses and sentenced to 6–12 years (robbery) plus 2–4 years consecutively (PIC). Other counts merged or received no additional penalty.
- Appellant moved pretrial to exclude Otanez’s prior identification; the court granted the motion in part but did not clearly rule on excluding the written statement. The court admitted Otanez’s prior statement for impeachment and substantive identity purposes at trial.
- On appeal Appellant principally challenged the sufficiency and weight of the identification evidence, arguing Otanez’s trial testimony showed he could not identify the robber and the mask made identification unreliable.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the combination of the prompt out-of-court identification and Officer Bowe’s corroborating testimony provided sufficient and weighty evidence of identity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identity evidence for robbery | Commonwealth: Otanez’s prompt written ID plus officer testimony linking Appellant to flight and discarded stolen cash proves identity beyond a reasonable doubt | Matos: Victim couldn’t identify robber at trial; robber wore a mask; prior statement ambiguous; no mask recovered | Affirmed: Prompt out-of-court ID plus corroborating circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove identity and robbery |
| Weight given to prior statement vs trial testimony | Commonwealth: Trial court properly credited the earlier statement as reliable and impeaching the inconsistent trial testimony | Matos: Trial testimony showed he could not be identified; trial court should have discounted prior statement | Affirmed: Trial court did not abuse discretion in crediting prior statement given its promptness and consistency with other evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rahman, 75 A.3d 497 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Orr, 38 A.3d 868 (Pa. Super. 2011) (identification need not be certain; weight and credibility for factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Hickman, 309 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1973) (Commonwealth must prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Rankin, 272 A.2d 886 (Pa. 1971) (mere conflict in testimony does not make evidence insufficient)
- Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (totality of circumstances for reliability of identification)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 434 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 1981) (trial court resolves inconsistencies; weight of evidence for factfinder)