248 A.3d 557
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background:
- Victim Thomas Watson was killed inside a Häagen-Dazs shop in Philadelphia; surveillance video showed multiple assailants and one wearing clothing matching items later recovered.
- Eyewitness James Weisbrod identified Appellant Josephe Murray from a photo array; Murray was arrested, gave an inculpatory statement admitting he shot Watson, and co-defendants also made inculpatory statements.
- Physical evidence included a discarded hoodie with the victim’s DNA, a TracFone linked to Murray and associates, and camouflage shorts recovered from Murray’s residence.
- A jury convicted Murray of first-degree murder and related offenses; the court sentenced him to life without parole plus 26–52 years. Murray appealed.
- On appeal Murray raised four principal claims: Batson challenge to the Commonwealth’s peremptory strikes; exclusion of evidence about Detective Dove’s unrelated misconduct; admission of hearsay (his girlfriend’s statement); and refusal to include conspiracy to commit third-degree murder on the verdict sheet.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Murray) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson challenge to peremptory strikes | Prosecutor’s strikes were race-neutral; no purposeful discrimination | Prosecutor struck 7 of 8 minorities, showing discriminatory intent; trial record insufficiently developed but pattern evident | Murray failed to make a prima facie showing; prosecutor gave race-neutral reasons for challenged strikes; no purposeful discrimination found |
| Admission of evidence of Detective Dove’s unrelated misconduct | Evidence was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial; Dove was not a witness here | Evidence would impeach police integrity and support claim that evidence (shorts) was planted | Exclusion affirmed: misconduct occurred in unrelated case a year later, not probative of motive to fabricate here; prejudicial and properly excluded |
| Admission of girlfriend Cheneka Jones’s statement (hearsay) | Any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence | Statement was inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial | Statement was hearsay and should not have been admitted, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given multiple independent inculpatory sources |
| Verdict sheet: include conspiracy to commit third-degree murder | No separate instruction was requested; adding an uncharged item would be improper/confusing | Jury should have been given option for conspiracy to commit third-degree murder per Fisher | Court did not abuse discretion: cannot add a verdict option without instructing jury on the offense; refusal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (peremptory strikes based solely on race violate Equal Protection)
- Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991) (defendant may object to race-based exclusions even if juror is of different race)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995) (step-two Batson inquiry requires only a race-neutral explanation, not persuasive plausibility)
- Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991) (facial validity of prosecutor’s explanation controls step-two analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 106 A.3d 742 (Pa. Super. 2014) (defendant must create a full record to support Batson prima facie showing)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 727 A.2d 578 (Pa. Super. 1999) (Pennsylvania-specific record requirements for Batson prima facie showing)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 980 A.2d 510 (Pa. 2009) (deference to trial court on Batson credibility/demeanor findings)
- Commonwealth v. Scott, 212 A.3d 1094 (Pa. Super. 2019) (examples of acceptable race-neutral reasons for peremptory strikes)
- Commonwealth v. Edwards, 177 A.3d 963 (Pa. Super. 2018) (discussing strike-sheet practice and patterns of strikes as part of Batson analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Bozyk, 987 A.2d 753 (Pa. 2009) (limits on impeaching police witnesses with unrelated prior misconduct)
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 80 A.3d 1186 (Pa. 2013) (recognizing conspiracy to commit third-degree murder as a cognizable offense)