Com. v. Reyes, D.
Com. v. Reyes, D. No. 371 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- On May 9, 2012 David Reyes approached Samuel Rivera at Rivera’s workplace, argued about prior sexual-abuse accusations against Rivera, produced a handgun, and shot Rivera multiple times; Rivera died of multiple gunshot wounds.
- Multiple eyewitnesses, video surveillance and cell‑phone geolocation tied Reyes to the scene; six cartridge casings and other items tossed by the shooter were recovered; Reyes fled to Florida and was arrested there.
- Reyes admitted shooting Rivera but testified he "blanked out," had taken Percocet and Xanax the day before, and was emotionally distraught after his mother’s recent death; defense presented psychologist Dr. Alan Tepper.
- Jury convicted Reyes of first‑degree murder and related firearms and PIC offenses; the court imposed life without parole and an aggregate concurrent term; Reyes appealed.
- On appeal Reyes argued (1) exclusion of Dr. Tepper’s opinion that Reyes acted in a heat of passion (voluntary manslaughter), and (2) the trial court erred in refusing jury instructions on voluntary manslaughter, voluntary intoxication (drugged condition), and diminished capacity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Reyes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert opinion that defendant acted in "heat of passion" (voluntary manslaughter) | Exclusion proper because no factual predicate for manslaughter instruction; expert would confuse jury. | Dr. Tepper was qualified and would opine Reyes acted under sudden/intense passion from provocation (words about his mother and prior acquittal). | Excluded — no factual basis for voluntary manslaughter; insults were non‑threatening and insufficient provocation. |
| Jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter | Not warranted because evidence did not show legally adequate provocation or loss of cool reflection. | Instruction required because evidence (victim’s insults, prior history) and expert testimony raised heat‑of‑passion issue. | Denied — objective standard not met; defendant armed, approached victim, and victim attempted to retreat. |
| Jury instruction on voluntary intoxication / drugged condition | No instruction because defendant did not show intoxication overwhelmed faculties at time of killing. | Instruction required because Reyes had used Percocet and Xanax and testified he blanked out; sister corroborated drug abuse. | Denied — mere ingestion the prior day (hangover) and lack of expert opinion that intoxication negated intent were insufficient. |
| Jury instruction on diminished capacity (negating specific intent) | No instruction because defense failed to produce expert testimony tying a mental disorder to inability to form specific intent. | Instruction required because Dr. Tepper and lay testimony showed mental disorder, substance abuse, grief, and impaired cognition. | Denied — Tepper would not opine on the ultimate factual question; no expert showing mental disorder prevented formation of specific intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. Commonwealth, 336 A.2d 262 (Pa. 1975) (words of insult generally insufficient provocation; factual/informational words observed may suffice in narrow circumstances)
- McCusker v. Commonwealth, 292 A.2d 286 (Pa. 1972) (psychiatric evidence admissible on heat‑of‑passion but must be grounded in record facts)
- Busanet v. Commonwealth, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012) (both passion and legally adequate provocation must be shown for voluntary manslaughter)
- Chamberlain v. Commonwealth, 30 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2011) (elements of first‑degree murder: malice and specific intent to kill)
- McCullum v. Commonwealth, 738 A.2d 1007 (Pa. 1999) (diminished capacity requires expert testimony linking disorder to inability to form specific intent)