Com. v. Mosses, A.
Com. v. Mosses, A. No. 3504 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 24, 2017Background
- On Nov. 20, 2014, Latia Mosses (complainant) and Archie Mosses (defendant) had a violent domestic altercation in their home in front of their 3-year-old child.
- Complainant testified defendant choked her, slammed her, pulled out braids, poked her with a screwdriver, grabbed a gun from a closet, pointed it at her and threatened to "blow her head off." Defendant’s brother (Hiram) intervened and took the gun and the child downstairs.
- Police observed bruising and red marks; photographs of injuries were taken; defendant had no carry permit; brother claimed the gun was his and he had a permit.
- Defendant was tried by bench, acquitted of aggravated assault but convicted of prohibited possession of a firearm, simple assault, possession of an instrument of crime, terroristic threats, and recklessly endangering another person; sentenced to 3–6 years plus 5 years probation.
- Defendant appealed, raising (1) sufficiency/weight re: firearm possession, (2) insufficiency re: simple assault (no medical records), (3) alleged improper prior-bad-acts reference by complainant on cross and denial of mistrial, and (4) admission/authentication of prison-call tapes on cross-exam of Hiram.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Mosses) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for prohibited possession of a firearm | Complainant’s testimony that defendant retrieved/pointed a gun and threatened her was credible and sufficient; circumstantial proof allowed | Defendant argued no firearm was found on him and brother legally carried it; victim's account unreliable | Affirmed: testimony and circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove possession |
| Sufficiency of evidence for simple assault | Photographs and testimony showed choking, bruising, hair pulled out, and attempts to cause bodily injury; substantial pain inferred | Defendant argued lack of medical records and no proof of impairment or substantial pain | Affirmed: evidence supported bodily injury and intent; sufficient for conviction |
| Alleged improper prior-bad-acts reference by complainant (Rule 404(b)) and denial of mistrial | The remark was inadvertent and not admitted as evidence; trial court presumed to have ignored it | Defendant sought mistrial because complainant referenced defendant’s criminal history on cross | Affirmed: court properly denied mistrial; presumption that bench ignored the stray remark |
| Authentication/admission of prison-call audio used to impeach Hiram | Commonwealth played a recording suggesting brothers told defendant to contact victim; attempted impeachment by extrinsic evidence | Defendant objected for lack of discovery and authentication; trial judge doubted voice identification and found tape not shown to impeach Hiram | Affirmed: trial court determined tape not authenticated/relevant and did not rely on it; no prejudicial misuse shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Yandamuri, 159 A.3d 503 (Pa. 2017) (sufficiency standard and circumstantial proof)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 144 A.3d 926 (Pa. Super. 2016) (de novo review for sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 141 A.3d 547 (Pa. Super. 2016) (remedy for successful sufficiency challenge)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (weight v. sufficiency distinction; remedy for weight challenge)
- Commonwealth v. Konias, 136 A.3d 1014 (Pa. Super. 2016) (review of weight challenges; trial court deference)
- Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2015) (trial judge's role in weight review)
- Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate court may not substitute fact-finder credibility determinations)
- Commonwealth v. Buford, 101 A.3d 1182 (Pa. Super. 2014) (possession of firearm may be proven circumstantially)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 848 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. 2004) (substantial pain can be inferred from circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Ogin, 540 A.2d 549 (Pa. Super. 1988) (same)
- Commonwealth v. Martuscelli, 54 A.3d 940 (Pa. Super. 2012) (intent to inflict bodily injury may be inferred)
- Commonwealth v. Irwin, 579 A.2d 955 (Pa. Super. 1990) (trial judges presumed to ignore prejudicial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Mickel, 142 A.3d 870 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 448 A.2d 1097 (Pa. Super. 1982) (use of extrinsic evidence to prove prior inconsistent statements)
- Commonwealth v. Hunter, 554 A.2d 550 (Pa. Super. 1989) (presumption that bench applies proper legal standards)