Com. v. McClelland, J., 434 WDA 2017

On December 9, 2014, multiple gunshots were fired in Erie, PA; victim Talynn Lucas was grazed on the left hand and treated at a hospital.
Eyewitness Johnnie Burkett saw a shooter at a window, briefly face-to-face, wearing a gray hoodie and dark jacket; she later identified appellant Jesse McClelland from surveillance video and in court as the shooter.
McClelland was 17 at the time; state law bars persons under 21 from obtaining a carry license.
A jury convicted McClelland of attempt—criminal homicide, two counts of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, firearms offenses, and a discharge-prohibited summary offense; some counts were merged at sentencing.
Trial court sentenced him to 96 to 192 months imprisonment plus 48 months probation (for a separate firearm possession-by-minor count); post-conviction relief reinstated his right to file post-sentence motion and direct appeal.
On appeal McClelland challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence for attempt–homicide given the minor injury and (2) insufficient identification evidence tying him to the shooting.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for attempt–criminal homicide	Commonwealth: firing multiple shots at the victim’s direction is a substantial step showing specific intent to kill	McClelland: only a grazing injury occurred; no evidence of intent to kill or substantial step	Court: Affirmed—multiple shots fired at close range support specific intent and substantial step despite minor injury
Sufficiency of identification evidence	Commonwealth: eyewitness Burkett’s in-court ID, corroborated by surveillance video and clothing, sufficiently identifies McClelland	McClelland: Burkett’s brief, distant view and reliance on clothing/appearance is unreliable	Court: Affirmed—credibility of eyewitness was for the jury; identification evidence was sufficient

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for sufficiency review)
Commonwealth v. Karkaria, 625 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1993) (verdict must establish each material element beyond a reasonable doubt)
Commonwealth v. Santana, 333 A.2d 876 (Pa. 1975) (evidence contradicting physical facts may be insufficient)
Commonwealth v. Chambers, 599 A.2d 630 (Pa. 1991) (view evidence in light most favorable to verdict-winner)
Commonwealth v. Morgan, 913 A.2d 906 (Pa. Super. 2006) (discussing sufficiency review principles)
Commonwealth v. Robertson, 874 A.2d 1200 (Pa. Super. 2005) (attempt–homicide requires substantial step plus specific intent to kill)
Commonwealth v. Gilliam, 417 A.2d 1203 (Pa. Super. 1980) (substantial step test focuses on acts done)
Commonwealth v. Schoff, 911 A.2d 147 (Pa. Super. 2006) (specific intent to kill may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Gease, 696 A.2d 130 (Pa. 1997) (intent may be inferred from natural and probable consequences)
Commonwealth v. Reid, 867 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2005) (serious bodily injury is not required for attempt–homicide)
Commonwealth v. Beasley, 138 A.3d 39 (Pa. Super. 2016) (credibility determinations lie with the fact-finder)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 153 A.3d 372 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appellate court may not reweigh evidence)