Com. v. Walker, N., Com. v. Walker, N. No. 1902 EDA 2016

On Feb 3, 2013, the Commonwealth alleged Norman Walker and James Roister assaulted Kenyatta Walker; Kenyatta gave a written, dated statement to police on Feb 5 describing being stabbed four times in the hand with a knife and seeing a gun.
No knife was recovered and there was no hospital/medical record introduced at trial; a photo of a bandaged hand was shown and Kenyatta testified he sought treatment days later.
At the non-jury trial the complainant (Kenyatta) largely recanted or said he did not recall the incident and initially denied remembering signing the police statement; Roister testified there was no stabbing, knife, gun, or bleeding.
The trial court convicted Norman Walker of aggravated assault (a felony), conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, PIC, and simple assault; before sentencing Walker moved for extraordinary relief (judgment of acquittal) on aggravated assault and conspiracy, which the sentencing court granted based on credibility concerns and lack of corroboration.
The Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court reviewed whether the sentencing court improperly reweighed credibility and whether the prior signed statement was admissible as substantive evidence.
The Superior Court reversed the order granting the judgment of acquittal, holding the sentencing court impermissibly reweighed evidence and that Kenyatta’s signed, adopted police statement was properly admissible and could support the convictions; the case was remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Walker's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing court erred by granting a post‑verdict judgment of acquittal on aggravated assault and conspiracy based on credibility/reliance on lack of corroboration	The Commonwealth argued the evidence was sufficient: Kenyatta’s signed Feb 5 statement (admissible under Lively) described stabbing with a knife and met elements of aggravated assault and conspiracy	The defense and sentencing court relied on Kenyatta’s recantation at trial, absence of medical/physical corroboration, no recovered knife, and Roister’s testimony denying stabbing	Superior Court: Reversed. Trial court impermissibly reweighed credibility. The signed, adopted prior statement was admissible substantive evidence and could support the convictions; remanded for resentencing

Commonwealth v. Feathers, 660 A.2d 90 (Pa. Super. 1995) (government may appeal post‑verdict order granting acquittal; appellate reinstatement possible)
Commonwealth v. Graham, 81 A.3d 137 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sufficiency review standard; court may not reweigh evidence)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 631 A.2d 639 (Pa. Super. 1993) (trial court limited after verdict; cannot redetermine credibility or weight)
Commonwealth v. Magnum, 654 A.2d 1146 (Pa. Super. 1995) (knife is a deadly weapon for aggravated assault)
Commonwealth v. Lively, 610 A.2d 7 (Pa. 1992) (prior written, signed inconsistent statements admissible as substantive evidence when adopted by witness)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 1139 (Pa. 2012) (recognizing Lively rule for substantive use of prior inconsistent statements)
Commonwealth v. Buford, 101 A.3d 1182 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing Lively on admissibility of prior signed statements)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 644 A.2d 177 (Pa. Super. 1994) (a witness need not reaffirm statement at trial for it to be admissible if previously signed and adopted)