Com. v. Palmore, C.
Com. v. Palmore, C. No. 517 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- July 7, 2012: At a Philadelphia block cookout, a fight erupted involving appellant Curtis Palmore and members of the Howell family; Palmore left and returned, and a single gunshot struck Daywone Howell in the leg.
- Several witnesses initially identified Palmore to police as the shooter; at trial several recanted, though at least one eyewitness (Nadirah Howell) testified at trial that she saw Palmore shoot Daywone.
- Charnea Howell gave a written statement to police relaying that people at the cookout said Palmore shot Daywone; at trial she admitted making the statement but then called it a lie and claimed police fabricated it.
- Palmore was convicted of (1) possessing a firearm while prohibited (tried non-jury), (2) carrying a firearm without a license, and (3) carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia; he was acquitted of aggravated assault and PIC.
- Sentenced to an aggregate 7.5 to 15 years; Palmore appealed arguing (1) trial court erred admitting Charnea Howell’s hearsay statement for impeachment, and (2) evidence was insufficient to sustain the firearms convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Charnea Howell’s out-of-court statement | Commonwealth: statement admissible to impeach prior inconsistent statements under Pa.R.E. 613(b) | Palmore: admission of hearsay identifying him as shooter was prejudicial and improperly used for truth | Court: admission for impeachment was proper; trial complied with Pa.R.E. 613(b) and no abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence for firearms convictions | Commonwealth: eyewitness IDs, police testimony of prior IDs, certificate of non-licensure, and appellant’s prior murder conviction satisfy elements of 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105, 6106, 6108 | Palmore: trial testimony contained recantations and therefore failed to identify him; acquittals on related charges show insufficient proof | Court: evidence sufficient — eyewitness IDs and police testimony supported shooter identification; documentary proof of no license and stipulated prior murder conviction established statutory elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walter, 93 A.3d 442 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Dent, 837 A.2d 571 (Pa. Super. 2003) (abuse of discretion defined)
- Commonwealth v. Charleston, 16 A.3d 505 (Pa. Super. 2011) (prior-hearsay statement admissible for impeachment under Pa.R.E. 613)
- In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073 (Pa. 2013) (discussed in relation to limits of Charleston)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 146 A.3d 257 (Pa. Super. 2016) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
- Commonwealth v. Moore, 103 A.3d 1240 (Pa. 2014) (inconsistent verdicts permissible)