Com. v. Thompson, R.
1542 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 11, 2017Background
- In November 2012 a gunfight outside Buffy’s Bar in Philadelphia left bystander Johnika Tiggett dead from a single .40 caliber gunshot to the back of the neck.
- Multiple witnesses placed Roland Thompson at the scene firing a .40 caliber semi‑automatic; ballistics linked .40 caliber casings and projectiles (including the bullet recovered from the decedent) to a single .40 Smith & Wesson.
- Thompson was shot in the leg that night, treated at a hospital, and later identified by witnesses; DNA and blood evidence tied him to a vehicle used after the shooting.
- A jury convicted Thompson of voluntary manslaughter (imperfect self‑defense theory), VUFA violations (including carrying a firearm on a public street), and possession of an instrument of crime; he received 7–15 years’ imprisonment plus probation.
- Thompson appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence because the Commonwealth failed to disprove justifiable self‑defense and (2) the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
- The trial court and the Superior Court affirmed, concluding the Commonwealth disproved self‑defense (including failure to retreat and use of excessive force) and the verdict did not shock the conscience.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Thompson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for voluntary manslaughter | Evidence showed Thompson fired the .40 S&W that killed Tiggett; ballistics and witness IDs support guilt | Thompson acted in justifiable self‑defense (or imperfect self‑defense); Commonwealth failed to disprove self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, jury could find self‑defense disproved (excessive force, not free from fault, failure to retreat) |
| Sufficiency for VUFA §6108 and PIC | Eyewitness testimony and stipulation that Thompson lacked a license; he carried and fired the gun on a public street | Implicit challenge to identification/possession | Affirmed: eyewitness and ballistics evidence support convictions for carrying and possession with criminal intent |
| Weight of the evidence | Verdict is supported by witness testimony, ballistics, and physical evidence; trial court observed testimony | Verdict was against the weight and based on conjecture | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict did not shock judicial conscience |
Key Cases Cited
- Com. v. Slocum, 86 A.3d 272 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence)
- Com. v. Bostick, 958 A.2d 543 (Pa. Super. 2008) (sufficiency and appellate review principles)
- Com. v. Smith, 956 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Super. 2008) (appellate sufficiency standards)
- Com. v. Sepulveda, 55 A.3d 1108 (Pa. 2012) (elements and prerequisites for justification/self‑defense)
- Com. v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738 (Pa. 2012) (imperfect self‑defense/unreasonable belief doctrine)
- Com. v. Martin, 5 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2010) (provocation/continuing the difficulty as means to disprove self‑defense)
- Com. v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211 (Pa. 2009) (standard for weight‑of‑the‑evidence review)
- Com. v. Cruz, 919 A.2d 279 (Pa. Super. 2007) (illustration of when a verdict shocks the judicial conscience)