Com. v. Washington, D.
Com. v. Washington, D. No. 106 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 7, 2017Background
- Derek Washington was convicted after a stipulated bench trial of three robberies arising from three Norristown incidents (Aug 22, 26, 29, 2014) in which victims were robbed of cash or a phone; a BB gun and a sweatshirt were later found in an apartment where officers detained Washington.
- One victim (Hernandez) reported being followed, threatened with a gun, and later observed Washington near his workplace multiple times; two other victims (Morales, Jackson) identified Washington at a one-on-one show-up.
- Washington was detained after officers followed a person matching Hernandez’s contemporaneous description to an apartment and located Washington there sitting on a couch; he was handcuffed and later made inculpatory statements after Miranda warnings.
- Washington moved to suppress his statements and the identifications as product of an unlawful seizure and an unduly suggestive show-up; he also filed a Rule 600 (speedy trial) claim and later raised several other trial-related claims on appeal.
- The suppression court denied relief; a stipulated bench trial admitted the suppression hearing testimony and exhibits, and the trial court found Washington guilty and sentenced him to 7–15 years imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for robbery of Jackson (force element) | Commonwealth: evidence (victim testimony) supports taking cash "by force however slight" | Washington: no force on victim; only contact with money, no fear or harm | Affirmed – any force sufficient to separate property from person supports robbery conviction (robbery §3701(a)(1)(v)) |
| Rule 600 speedy-trial / nominal bail | Commonwealth: court willing to hear 600; no denial because defense requested continuance and did not press 600 later | Washington: court’s comments at suppression hearing amounted to constructive denial of his Rule 600 motion after 180 days in custody | Denied – no ruling by trial court to review; defendant did not pursue hearing or supply cases, so claim unreviewable |
| Legality of seizure / reasonable suspicion for detention at apartment | Commonwealth: repeated eyewitness sightings, contemporaneous description, and bystander tip gave officers reasonable suspicion to detain while awaiting victims | Washington: inconsistencies in descriptions, walking with companion, not wearing sweatshirt, and location differences negated reasonable suspicion | Denied – totality of circumstances supported investigative detention and temporary seizure pending identifications |
| Suppression of one-on-one show-up identification | Commonwealth: victims had repeated or recent opportunities to observe suspect, provided consistent descriptions, and immediately identified Washington | Washington: show-up was unduly suggestive (handcuffed, alone, delay, differing descriptions, distraction by weapon) leading to likely misidentification | Denied – court found identifications reliable under totality of circumstances (factors from Sanders), so suppression not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 151 A.3d 662 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and force element in robbery)
- Commonwealth v. Bedell, 954 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Super. 2008) (any amount of force to separate property from person satisfies robbery statute)
- Commonwealth v. Dougherty, 860 A.2d 31 (Pa. 2004) (unreviewable where defendant fails to pursue motion and trial court never ruled)
- Commonwealth v. Sanders, 42 A.3d 325 (Pa. Super. 2012) (factors for assessing reliability of identifications)
- Commonwealth v. Moye, 836 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. 2003) (show-up identification of handcuffed defendant admissible where reliability factors favor admissibility)