Com. v. Mays, W.
Com. v. Mays, W. No. 3225 EDA 2014
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 10, 2017Background
- April 9, 2011 shooting: two victims (Michael Askew died; Saquanne Stanford survived with serious head/neck wounds). Ballistics indicated shots from two different firearms (.45 fired from inside the van; .40 from outside).
- Stanford initially resisted identifying shooters, later gave handwritten statement and identified Appellant William Mays from a photo array; claimed Mays (aka “Will/Man Man”) directed parking and then shot them after Stanford returned Mays’s gun.
- Police later recovered a stolen .45 Kimber pistol (ballistically matched to .45 casings/jackets found inside the van) after a high‑speed chase in which Mays allegedly fled; passenger Christopher Graham fled and discarded the weapon at a Walgreens storage area.
- A fellow cellmate (Virgil Pauling) testified that Mays confessed in jail; prosecutors introduced evidence of the Delaware County arrest and efforts to locate Graham; Stanford recanted at trial and was impeached with prior statements and texts.
- Jury convicted Mays of first‑degree murder, attempted murder, and related offenses; trial court sentenced Mays to life without parole and concurrent 28½–57 years; appellate issues raised included information sufficiency, confrontation, prosecutorial misconduct, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and jury dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Mays) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency/form of bill of information (principal vs accomplice) | Information adequately charged murder/attempted murder; not overly technical. | Info was defective for listing accomplice liability without supporting evidence. | Affirmed: no prejudice; ballistic evidence supported possibility of two shooters. |
| 2. Confrontation Clause re: unavailable witness Graham | Evidence of arrest and good‑faith efforts to locate Graham explained absence; no testimonial use of his statements. | Denied right to confront Graham (Graham’s role in discarding weapon). | Affirmed: no confrontation violation because Graham did not testify and Commonwealth explained his absence. |
| 3. Prosecutorial misconduct (various remarks) | Remarks were fair argument, based on evidence, or proper impeachment. | Prosecutor called Mays an “assassin,” referenced criminal history, inferred texts identified Mays, and used coerced/perjured testimony. | Affirmed: comments were permissible or supported by evidence; prior acts admissible to link Mays to the weapon. |
| 4. Mistrial after dismissal of juror for intimidation/ hardship | Trial court managed juror colloquies and admonished spectators; remaining jurors impartial. | Dismissal of one juror required mistrial because of intimidation and prejudice. | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; cautionary measures sufficient. |
| 5. Admission of crime‑scene photos of decedent | Photos relevant to scene, bullet trajectories, and location of ballistic evidence; essential despite possible inflammatory nature. | Photographs were inflammatory and prejudicial. | Affirmed: even if inflammatory, probative/essential value outweighed prejudice. |
| 6. Jury instructions (flight, attempted murder, accomplice liability) | Flight instruction proper where evidence of evasion and connection to weapon existed; other instructions accurate. | Flight instruction improper because not alleged in info; attempted murder/accomplice instructions erroneous. | Affirmed: flight instruction permissible; attempted murder/accomplice claims waived for lack of timely specific objections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Morales, 669 A.2d 1003 (Pa. Super. 1996) (purpose and function of bill of information)
- Commonwealth v. Milburn, 72 A.3d 617 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Confrontation Clause standard of review)
- Commonwealth v. Jaynes, 135 A.3d 606 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standards for reviewing prosecutorial misconduct)
- Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519 (Pa. 2003) (two‑step test for admission of inflammatory photographs)
- Commonwealth v. Lukowich, 875 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2005) (flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt)