Com. v. Muhammad, M.
Com. v. Muhammad, M. No. 1157 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 31, 2017Background
- On December 27, 2008, Malik Muhammad and co-defendant Jamil Jones traveled to West Oak Lane to commit a robbery; three people were shot—one (Terrell Holliday) died and two (Naeer Witherspoon, Brandon Garland) were seriously injured.
- Police recovered three .40 caliber cartridge cases fired from the same gun; a white Buick associated with the victims was seen leaving the scene and later located.
- Jamil Jones ultimately confessed in multiple statements, implicated Muhammad as the shooter, entered a plea in exchange for cooperation, and testified at Muhammad’s trial; other eyewitnesses failed to identify Muhammad at trial.
- Muhammad was convicted by a jury (Sept. 2012) of second-degree murder, conspiracy, aggravated assault, possession of an instrument of crime, and multiple firearms offenses; sentenced in March 2015 to life plus 35–70 years; he appealed.
- On appeal Muhammad challenged sufficiency and weight of the evidence, confrontation clause re: the medical witness, premature waiver colloquy about testifying, alleged prosecutorial vouching, and a jury-instruction error; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's / Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Convictions rest largely on co-defendant Jones’s testimony; no independent eyewitness ID or physical link to Muhammad | Credibility is for the jury; uncorroborated testimony of a single witness can suffice; other testimony corroborated Jones | Affirmed — sufficiency met; Muhammad failed to specify which elements in Rule 1925(b) and, on merits, evidence supported convictions. |
| Weight of the evidence | Verdict against the weight because it relied on Jones and other witnesses failed to ID Muhammad | Weight claim was not preserved at trial (no Rule 607 motion); trial judge’s credibility findings entitled to deference | Waived for appeal; if considered, no relief — verdict did not shock conscience. |
| Confrontation Clause (medical testimony) | Testifying doctor (Dr. Gulino) did not perform autopsy or sign the report; Muhammad could not confront actual autopsy performer | Dr. Gulino reviewed autopsy materials, formed independent opinion, and was subject to cross-examination; expert may rely on such materials | Denied — no confrontation violation; expert gave independent, cross-examinable opinion. |
| Premature waiver colloquy, prosecutorial vouching, jury instruction error | Court conducted waiver colloquy before Commonwealth rested; prosecutor vouched by eliciting that DA authorized warrants; jury was instructed with aggravated-assault language for murder charge | Issues not preserved by contemporaneous objections; if considered, no prejudice (colloquy), no improper vouching, and charge, read as whole, was legally correct | Waived or without merit; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goins v. Commonwealth, 867 A.2d 526 (Pa. Super. 2004) (sufficiency review standard—view evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Melendez-Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 856 A.2d 1278 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Rule 1925(b) cannot be used to preserve issues not raised at trial)
- Sherwood v. Commonwealth, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (weight-of-the-evidence claim must be raised in trial court per Pa.R.Crim.P. 607 to preserve)
- Small v. Commonwealth, 741 A.2d 666 (Pa. 1999) (credibility/inconsistencies are weight issues, not sufficiency)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 648 A.2d 1177 (Pa. 1994) (sufficiency review does not assess witness credibility)
- Clay v. Commonwealth, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (appellate review of weight claim is review of trial court’s exercise of discretion)