Com. v. Williams, J.
1005 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- On Oct. 30, 2010 Jamir Williams allegedly returned to the vicinity of Ess’s Bar (Chester, PA), exited a silver car, and shot Robert Adams and Emerson Price; Price died and Adams was seriously injured.
- Witnesses included Allante Johnson (prelim hearing ID of Williams as shooter; later gave a written recantation; testified at trial saying he initially recanted because of threats), Sijourney Yokley (driver; gave a police statement implicating Williams and later testified about driving him and hearing shots), and Carlos Colon (passenger; testified Williams returned with a gun and later threatened him and Yokley).
- Williams was charged with first-degree murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, and possession of an instrument of crime; after a second jury trial (Feb. 2015) he was convicted on each count and sentenced to life plus consecutive terms.
- Key trial disputes on appeal: (1) admission of Johnson’s testimony about threats/vandalism and lack of a limiting instruction; (2) whether Yokley was improperly compelled or allowed to resume testifying after invoking the Fifth Amendment and whether the court erred by issuing a material witness warrant sua sponte.
- The trial court and Superior Court upheld admissibility of the intimidation-related testimony as permissible to explain prior inconsistent statements and found Williams waived/ lacked standing on the Fifth Amendment/material witness-warrant claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Johnson’s testimony about threats/vandalism | Testimony was admissible to explain why Johnson recanted and failed to appear; it rehabilitated his prior consistent preliminary-hearing testimony. | Testimony suggested Williams intimidated the witness without proof linking Williams to the threats; lack of limiting instruction prejudiced the defense. | Admission was within the trial court’s discretion as explanation for prior inconsistent statements; no abuse and no showing of prejudice from omission of limiting instruction. |
| Order and scope of Commonwealth’s proof about prior inconsistent statements | Commonwealth may present anticipated rebuttal evidence out of order to explain a witness’s inconsistency. | Out-of-order presentation was prejudicial and improper. | Court may admit out-of-order rebuttal evidence; defense did not timely object so issue waived. |
| Yokley’s invocation of Fifth Amendment and return to the stand; material witness warrant | Commonwealth: Yokley voluntarily resumed testimony after being advised; her privilege is personal and her later testimony was admissible. | Williams: Court coerced or improperly detained Yokley and failed to allow her to consult counsel before resuming; court erred in sua sponte ordering material-witness warrant. | Williams lacks standing to assert Yokley’s Fifth Amendment rights; no timely objection was made; testimony was voluntary and issue waived. |
| Admission of testimony by Colon and Yokley that Williams threatened them post-shooting | Testimony is part of the sequence of events and explains witnesses’ delayed cooperation; relevant to narrative, not used to prove character. | Testimony is evidence of other bad acts (404(b)) and unduly prejudicial. | Testimony was admissible as part of the natural development of events and to explain witness behavior; not reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and prejudice analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Goldman, 70 A.3d 874 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court discretion in admitting evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Bryant, 462 A.2d 785 (Pa. Super. 1983) (third‑party threats inadmissible unless linked to defendant; exception for explaining prior inconsistent statements)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 259 A.2d 165 (Pa. 1969) (principle on relevance of threats and linkage to defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Rickabaugh, 706 A.2d 826 (Pa. Super. 1997) (use of prior consistent statements to rehabilitate witnesses)
- Commonwealth v. Smallwood, 442 A.2d 222 (Pa. 1982) (trial court discretion to admit out‑of‑order rebuttal evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 540 A.2d 246 (Pa. 1988) (anticipatory admission of prior consistent statements permitted)
- Commonwealth v. Mokluk, 444 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Super. 1982) (discretion to admit rebuttal evidence out of order)
- Commonwealth v. Billa, 555 A.2d 835 (Pa. 1989) (need for limiting instructions when evidence admitted for limited purpose)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 25 A.3d 777 (Pa. 2011) (defendant must show reasonable probability that outcome would differ absent curative instruction)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 807 A.2d 872 (Pa. 2002) (definition of reasonable probability to undermine confidence in outcome)
- Commonwealth v. Simmons, 804 A.2d 625 (Pa. 2001) (consider totality of evidence when assessing prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. York, 465 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Super. 1983) (issues not raised at trial are waived on appeal)