Com. v. Mumin, K.
1960 EDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 21, 2016Background
- On Oct. 23, 2007, Cornell Drummond was ambushed and critically shot; he survived but is paralyzed from the waist down. He identified Appellant Khaleef Mumin and co-defendant Tyrik Perez as the shooters during a 2009 federal proffer in exchange for sentencing consideration.
- Police investigations produced photo arrays, an ATF involvement, and subsequent arrests of Mumin and Perez in May 2009.
- At trial (Feb. 2011), the Commonwealth’s chief witness was Drummond; other witnesses included police officers, detectives, and an ATF agent. Evidence included eyewitness ID, scene testimony, and that Mumin attempted to hide a black semiautomatic handgun during a stop the day after the shooting.
- A jury convicted Mumin of attempted murder, aggravated assault (merged for sentencing), conspiracy, two firearms offenses, and possession of an instrument of crime.
- Mumin did not file a direct appeal; after a PCRA petition, his appellate rights were reinstated nunc pro tunc and he appealed.
- The Superior Court affirmed, rejecting Mumin’s sufficiency, weight, and evidentiary challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder and conspiracy | Commonwealth: eyewitness ID, concerted stalking/shooting, and evidence of access to similar weapon supported convictions | Mumin: mere presence; no specific intent to kill; no proof he agreed or assisted Perez | Affirmed — evidence (including eyewitness ID, coordinated conduct, and firearm evidence) supported specific intent, attempt, and conspiracy |
| Weight of the evidence | N/A (Commonwealth prevailed at trial) | Mumin: verdict against weight; only present, no agreement or assistance | Waived — not preserved below; court noted even if reached, weight claim lacked merit |
| Admission of post-offense firearm (similar-weapon evidence) | Commonwealth: admissible to show access, familiarity, and similarity to weapons used | Mumin: unfairly prejudicial under Pa. R. Evid. 403; trial court failed to balance on record | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; similar-weapon exception and limited purpose justified admission; no on-record balancing required |
| Requirement of on-the-record Rule 403 analysis | Commonwealth: trial courts need not verbalize mental balancing on record | Mumin: court should have placed Rule 403 balancing on record | Affirmed — presumption courts know the law; no requirement to record mental deliberations |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 141 A.3d 523 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Tarrach, 42 A.3d 342 (Pa. Super. 2012) (verdict-review principles)
- Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007) (use of deadly weapon on vital part supports specific intent to kill)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 756 A.2d 1139 (Pa. 2000) (elements and proof of conspiracy may be inferred)
- Commonwealth v. Edwards, 903 A.2d 1139 (Pa. 2006) (admission of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Broaster, 863 A.2d 588 (Pa. Super. 2004) (similar-weapon evidence admissible to show access/preference)
- Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657 (Pa. 2014) (no requirement for trial court to state Rule 403 balancing on record)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (preservation rules for appellate review)