Com. v. Rodriguez, M.
210 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- On Feb 9, 2013, a patron (Damien Robinson) was shot at Eddie G’s bar in Easton; he later died. Police recovered casings, bullets, a broken cell phone, a sweatshirt, and a bag of suspected marijuana from the back room.
- Eyewitness Mike King (a bouncer) testified he saw Rodriguez with a gun and heard three shots; he initially withheld ID from police and first lied to the grand jury but later identified Rodriguez. Bartender Jennifer Delgado later testified and admitted she initially misled police and received leniency/immunity for cooperation.
- DNA testing linked Rodriguez to the bag of marijuana and as a major contributor on the recovered cell phone; casings/bullets were all fired from the same firearm but casings lacked testable DNA.
- Rodriguez was arrested, tried by jury (Feb 1–5, 2016), convicted of first-degree murder, and sentenced to life without parole. He filed post-sentence motions and appealed after a procedural delay caused by a clerk’s error.
- On appeal Rodriguez raised six issues: weight of the evidence, disclosure of witness contact info, admission of testimony about assaults on a witness, hearsay/grand jury testimony issues, refusal to instruct jury on penalty for murder, and Eighth Amendment/Miller challenge to life without parole.
Issues
| Issue | Rodriguez's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight of the evidence (one-witness ID) | Verdict unreliable—based on a single eyewitness (King), inconsistent ID, witnesses had motives to lie, DNA only places Rodriguez at scene earlier | Jury could credit King; additional circumstantial/DNA evidence corroborated ID; credibility for jury | Denied — trial court decision not an abuse of discretion; verdict did not shock conscience (weight review standard applied) |
| Disclosure of witness contact info | Trial court erred by not ordering addresses/phone numbers for ~56 witnesses; court’s in-court meeting was inadequate and prevented private defense interviews | Commonwealth withheld contact info for witness safety; court provided names and facilitated courthouse interviews/subpoenas | Denied — court balanced safety and defense needs; no abuse of discretion under Pa.R.Crim.P. 573 |
| Admission of Delgado’s testimony about later assaults/killing | Testimony constituted inadmissible prior-bad-acts evidence and prejudicial | No contemporaneous objection at trial; issue waived | Waived — appellant failed to object at trial, so appellate review barred |
| Hearsay/grand jury testimony read at trial | Detective’s statements and prosecutor’s reading were impermissible hearsay | Transcript excerpts were grand jury testimony read by agreement; no objection was made at trial | Waived — appellant expressly agreed at trial to reading; cannot raise on appeal |
| Jury instruction on penalty for first-degree murder | Jury should have been told the mandatory penalty to evaluate alternate suspects’ motive to lie | Punishment is for the court; juries decide guilt only; penalty info could improperly influence jury | Denied — punishment is court’s domain; not an appropriate jury instruction |
| Life without parole sentence under Miller (Eighth Amendment) | Mandatory LWOP violates Miller because Rodriguez’s youth/immaturity made him like a juvenile | Miller applies only to offenders under 18 at the time of the crime; Rodriguez was 18 at the time | Denied — Miller inapplicable; sentence legally authorized for an 18‑year‑old |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Capaldi, 112 A.3d 1242 (Pa. 2015) (timing of appeal when post‑sentence motions filed)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (standard for appellate review of weight‑of‑the‑evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 63 A.3d 797 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court discretion in disclosure of eyewitness contact information)
- Commonwealth v. Jordan, 125 A.3d 55 (Pa. Super. 2015) (balancing witness safety and defense access under Rule 573)
- Commonwealth v. Hood, 872 A.2d 175 (Pa. Super. 2005) (no mandatory disclosure of witness identifying info under Rule 573)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory LWOP for offenders under 18 unconstitutional)
