Com. v. Wallace, J.
244 A.3d 1261
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2021Background
- On April 6, 2018, Norristown police responded to a shooting in which victim Kamal Dutton was shot in the head; surveillance and shell casings tied the scene to four 9mm shots.
- Video from a nearby store showed Jamal Wallace and co-defendant Mason Clary together for hours beforehand; Wallace retrieved a firearm from a vehicle, racked it, and carried it tucked in his waistband while in the store.
- Wallace, Clary, and a juvenile (C.S.) walked to the area where they confronted Dutton; the trio surrounded him, Wallace produced a gun and fired multiple shots while the others chased; all three fled together.
- C.S. later admitted in juvenile court that he, Wallace, and Clary acted in concert; Dutton made pretrial photographic identifications of Wallace; Clary’s GPS and store video placed the defendants at relevant locations before, during, and after the shooting.
- A jury convicted Wallace of aggravated assault—serious bodily injury, criminal conspiracy, persons not to possess a firearm, and carrying a firearm without a license; the court imposed consecutive terms totaling 32 to 65 years.
- On appeal Wallace challenged: admission of injury photographs; admissibility of Clary’s GPS data; denial of the jury’s request for certain statements during deliberations; sufficiency and weight of evidence on conspiracy/identification; and discretionary aspects of sentencing (mitigation and alleged double-counting of priors).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Wallace) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of victim-injury photographs | Photos were relevant to show victim’s injuries and causal link to assault | Photos were inflammatory and cumulative of testimonial medical evidence | Court admitted photos: not gruesome, probative value outweighed any potential prejudice; cautionary jury instruction given |
| Admissibility of co-defendant’s GPS records (hearsay) | GPS data is machine-generated, not a “statement” by a person, so not hearsay; admissible | GPS records are hearsay and should not qualify as business records exception | Court held GPS data not hearsay under Pa.R.E. 801 because it is computer-generated and not an asserted human statement; admissible |
| Sending victim’s statements to jury during deliberations | Some statements were in evidence and relevant; jury requested them | Wallace argued jury should have them; prosecution opposed because one exhibit contained inadmissible material about co-defendant | Court denied sending statements: discretionary refusal was not abuse of discretion since one exhibit referenced evidence previously excluded and partial submission would be problematic |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy conviction | Circumstantial evidence (hours together, arming and concealing gun, joint surrounding and chasing, coordinated flight) supported an implied agreement | Wallace argued events were spontaneous and akin to a brawl (Kennedy) — no prior agreement shown | Court found evidence sufficient to infer an agreement and overt acts in furtherance of conspiracy; conviction affirmed |
| Weight of the evidence / new trial (identification) | Jury could credit pretrial identifications, surveillance, C.S.’s plea admission, and officer testimony despite equivocations at trial | Wallace argued identifications were unreliable and testimony conflicted, warranting new trial | Court affirmed denial of new trial: no palpable abuse of discretion; credibility/resolution of conflicts were for jury and trial court |
| Discretionary sentencing (mitigation and "double-counting") | Sentence justified by nature of crime, prior record, PSI, danger to community; reasons for departing from guidelines stated on record | Wallace argued court failed to consider mitigation and impermissibly double-counted prior record | Court found sentencing within discretion: court reviewed PSI, stated reasons for above-guideline sentence (seriousness, priors, community protection), and used priors as one of multiple factors—no abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Haney, 131 A.3d 24 (Pa. 2015) (two-step test for admitting potentially inflammatory photographs)
- U.S. v. Lizarraga-Tirado, 789 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir.) (computer-generated GPS output is not hearsay because no person made the assertion)
- U.S. v. Khorozian, 333 F.3d 498 (3d Cir.) (machine-generated data like date stamps are not hearsay under federal rules)
- Wisconsin v. Kandutsch, 799 N.W.2d 865 (Wis.) (automatic monitoring-device reports generated without human intervention are not hearsay)
- Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 453 A.2d 927 (Pa. Super. 1982) (spontaneous mutual participation in a brawl does not alone establish conspiracy)
- Commonwealth v. Simpson, 829 A.2d 334 (Pa. Super. 2003) (trial court may not base aggravated-range sentence solely on factors already included in guidelines)