118 A.3d 457
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- On Feb 11, 2010, Milique Wagner was with Kelvin Bryant and Amin Payne at an apartment; later the three left and a short time after a shooting occurred that killed Braheem King.
- Payne testified he saw Wagner and Bryant pull out guns and shoot King; victim was struck 11 times and died at hospital.
- Ballistics indicated at least two semi-automatic handguns were used; police recovered numerous casings and projectiles.
- Officers encountered Wagner near the scene shortly after the shooting; he was detained, released, and later arrested on a warrant on Sept 29, 2010.
- After a consolidated jury trial on Feb 6, 2013, Wagner was convicted of first-degree murder (life), conspiracy (5–10 years concurrent), and possession of an instrument of a crime (1–5 years concurrent).
- Wagner appealed, challenging trial rulings that limited cross-examination of Commonwealth witnesses about (1) other shootings involving Payne and (2) Wagner’s own post-arrest statements to police.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Wagner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wagner was entitled to question Payne about other shootings | Objected that such cross-examination was improper or irrelevant | Wagner argued cross-examination would show motive/plan and blame others for the killing | Waived by Wagner on appeal because he did not preserve/join the co-defendants’ pretrial motion; not considered on merits |
| Whether Wagner could elicit his own out-of-court statements through police witnesses | Argued statements are hearsay and inadmissible for the truth unless an exception applies | Wagner claimed his post-arrest statements implicated others and were exculpatory (non-hearsay or admissible) to show someone else committed the crime | Court excluded the statements as inadmissible hearsay; exclusion was proper and did not violate right to present a defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (recognizes defendant’s right to present relevant evidence but allows exclusion under established evidentiary rules)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 950 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2008) (scope of cross-examination lies within trial court discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716 (Pa. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122 (Pa. 2007) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Boyle, 368 A.2d 661 (Pa. 1977) (evidence that someone else committed the crime is relevant when admissible)
- Commonwealth v. McGowan, 635 A.2d 113 (Pa. 1993) (same)
- Commonwealth v. Rini, 427 A.2d 1385 (Pa. Super. 1981) (same)
- Commonwealth v. Benson, 10 A.3d 1268 (Pa. Super. 2010) (defendant’s out-of-court, self-serving statements offered for truth are inadmissible hearsay)
- Commonwealth v. Murphy, 425 A.2d 352 (Pa. 1981) (same)