Com. v. Stokes, W.
Com. v. Stokes, W. No. 1861 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 12, 2017Background
- On August 5, 2009, Niam Wilson Atif was shot three times and killed on Chester Avenue in Philadelphia; eyewitnesses saw a teen in a black hooded sweatshirt (co-defendant Marquise Walker-Womack) flee the scene.
- A .38 Special revolver was later recovered at 5403 Harley Terrace; ballistics testing indicated the three projectiles recovered from the victim were fired from the same weapon and were consistent with that .38 Special.
- Appellant Warren Stokes was linked by testimony from cooperating gang members (Kareem Pittman and Tayale Shelton) who said Stokes supplied the gun and solicited Walker-Womack to kill the victim; those witnesses had pled guilty in federal RICO prosecutions and cooperated to reduce their sentences.
- Another jailhouse informant (Michael Williams) gave inconsistent statements—initially implicating Stokes, then recanting and testifying he had been induced to lie.
- A jury convicted Stokes of first-degree murder, conspiracy, firearm offenses, and PIC; the court imposed an aggregate life sentence (mandatory life without parole for first-degree murder).
- Stokes appealed, arguing (1) insufficiency of the evidence (relying on the alleged unreliability of cooperating witnesses) and (2) that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Stokes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain first-degree murder conviction | Witness testimony plus ballistics and recovery of the firearm at a location where Stokes was present sufficed to prove solicitation and provision of the murder weapon | Testimony was inherently unreliable because it depended on two cooperating federal informants facing severe sentences, with motive to lie; no direct eyewitness or physical link to Stokes shooting the victim | Affirmed: evidence (including corroborating physical evidence and witness testimony) sufficient; challenge was actually a credibility attack not a true sufficiency claim (court accepts evidence as true for sufficiency review) |
| Weight of the evidence (new trial claim) | The jury could reasonably credit cooperating witnesses and ballistics linking the weapon to the scene; inconsistencies were for the jury to resolve | Verdict shocks the conscience because primary witnesses were incentivized to lie; conflicting testimony (e.g., Williams) undermines credibility | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; weight challenges are for the trial court and denial was not a palpable abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hicks, 151 A.3d 216 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 571 A.2d 1035 (Pa. 1990) (sufficiency review accepts credibility of evidence supporting verdict)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2003) (distinguishing sufficiency and weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Forbes, 867 A.2d 1268 (Pa. Super. 2005) (weight of the evidence is for factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873 (Pa. 2008) (appellate review of weight claims limited to abuse of discretion)