Com. v. Trapp, S.
1493 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 13, 2016Background
- On May 29, 2011, Tiffany Nixon was stabbed, choked, and shot in her home; she survived and later identified Shakoor Trapp as her attacker.
- Nixon first recognized Trapp from Facebook photos shown by family, then promptly identified him in a non-suggestive police photo array and in court.
- Police searched Trapp’s residence pursuant to warrant and recovered a bloody sock containing Nixon’s DNA and later Trapp’s DNA; Trapp was found hiding in attic rafters when officers arrested him.
- A neighbor placed Trapp near the scene shortly before the attack and observed him with a small silver handgun similar to the victim’s description.
- Trapp was convicted after a jury trial of attempted homicide, aggravated assault, burglary, criminal trespass, possessing an instrument of crime, recklessly endangering another person, and simple assault; he received an aggregate sentence of 32.5 to 65 years.
- Posttrial, Trapp challenged sufficiency/weight of the evidence, the exclusion of an eyewitness-identification expert (motion in limine), excessiveness of sentence, and use of the deadly-weapon guideline enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth’s Argument | Trapp’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove identity/guilt | Evidence (victim ID, DNA on bloody sock, neighbor testimony, Trapp hiding, his videotaped statement) supports conviction | Identification and evidence insufficient to prove Trapp was perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt | Convictions supported: combined direct and circumstantial proof permitted jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Weight of the evidence | Jury verdict reasonable given quantity and quality of corroborating evidence | Verdict against the weight of evidence; should shock conscience | Weight claim rejected: verdict did not shock court’s conscience; new trial not required |
| Exclusion of defense expert on eyewitness ID (motion in limine) | Walker permits such expert testimony only in limited cases (typically when case is solely or primarily reliant on eyewitness ID); here prosecution case not primarily ID-based | Expert needed because ID was central and discovery of sock flowed from ID; also defense alleged possible planting | Motion in limine properly granted: Walker distinguished—case had corroborating DNA, neighbor testimony, admission and consciousness-of-guilt evidence, so expert testimony was not warranted |
| Sentence excessive and reliance on impermissible factors (deadly-weapon enhancement/Alleyne) | Sentencing court considered PSI, prior record, victim impact, community safety; guidelines advisory; deadly-weapon enhancement applied as guideline adjustment, not a binding mandatory fact | Sentence excessive; deadly-weapon matrix enhancement unconstitutional under Alleyne and/or vague/overbroad | Sentence affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; guideline enhancements are advisory and do not violate Alleyne; no impermissible factors relied upon |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 92 A.3d 766 (Pa. 2014) (eyewitness-identification expert testimony admissible in limited, discretionary circumstances, generally where case is solely/primarily dependent on eyewitness ID)
- Commonwealth v. Davido, 868 A.2d 431 (Pa. 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 2004) (sufficiency review and reasonable-inferences standard)
- Commonwealth v. Orr, 38 A.3d 868 (Pa. 2011) (circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa. Super. 2011) (circumstantial evidence principles)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24 (Pa. 2011) (weight-of-the-evidence standard and when a new trial is required)
- Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 946 A.2d 645 (Pa. 2008) (discussing weight-of-the-evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Small, 741 A.2d 666 (Pa. 1999) (factfinder’s exclusive province to weigh credibility and evidence)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (holding that facts increasing mandatory minimums must be submitted to jury; referenced in sentencing/enhancement analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 112 A.3d 1210 (Pa. Super. 2015) (sentencing guidelines and enhancements are advisory; enhancements do not trigger Alleyne invalidation)