Com. v. Williams, J., 1041 EDA 2015

Background

On July 24, 2010 Jamir Williams ("Appellant") was alleged to have shot and killed Rahim Hicks outside J & S Seafood; shell casings and a projectile were recovered and later ballistically linked to a gun seized from another person. Appellant was arrested in February 2012 and gave a recorded custodial statement claiming he was a witness and naming another person as the shooter.
Two eyewitnesses provided statements: Kandie Meinhart (Appellant's then-girlfriend) gave a recorded statement implicating Appellant; Emil Williams later identified Appellant in a photo array and testified for the Commonwealth under a plea agreement. A separate witness, Nathan Burrell, gave an on-scene description of the shooter.
Appellant moved pretrial to suppress his custodial statement (arguing he lacked capacity to waive Miranda), to redact portions of that statement (foul language, hearsay-within-hearsay, references to prior dealings and counsel), and moved to broaden cross-examination of Emil Williams to include his full criminal history. The Commonwealth moved in limine to limit cross-examination of Emil.
At a multi-day suppression/hearing, the trial court heard testimony from lead detectives, a forensic expert, and defense expert Dr. Gerald Cooke (who opined Appellant was intellectually disabled and could not knowingly waive Miranda). The court found the detectives credible and found Dr. Cooke’s methodology and conclusions insufficient to overcome evidence Appellant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived Miranda.
At trial the court admitted Appellant’s recorded statement (with certain limited redactions ordered pretrial), allowed testimony by officers about on-scene descriptions and witness noncooperation as explanatory of police conduct, limited cross-examination of Emil to recent/crimen falsi convictions and open charges related to his plea, and permitted the Commonwealth to rehabilitate Emil with prior consistent statements.
A jury convicted Appellant of first-degree murder and PIC; the Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s comprehensive opinion resolving the suppression, redaction, hearsay, Confrontation Clause, and impeachment/cross-examination issues.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's / Trial Court's Argument	Held
1. Motion to suppress custodial statement (Miranda waiver)	Williams contended he is intellectually disabled and Dr. Cooke showed he could not knowingly/intelligently waive Miranda, so statement should be suppressed.	Detectives properly read Miranda, Appellant initialed/signed form, prior contacts with justice system and tape show comprehension; Dr. Cooke relied on nonstandard test administration and unverified self-report.	Denied — waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; suppression refused.
2. Requests to redact parts of Appellant’s recorded statement (foul language; hearsay-within-hearsay; references to prior dealings/counsel)	Williams sought redaction of profanity, hearsay lines, prior contacts and anything implicating silence/right to counsel.	Statement was relevant and probative; profanity contextual; several limited redactions granted where necessary; references to counsel/silence were not incriminating and Miranda waiver valid.	Mostly denied; limited redactions granted per court’s detailed order; statement admitted in context.
3. Limitation on cross-examining Emil Williams about prior convictions	Williams argued he needed full prior criminal history to show motive/bias for plea and to impeach credibility.	Court: Rule 609 permits impeachment with crimen falsi and convictions within 10 years or current supervision; old closed convictions lack leverage and are prejudicial.	Denied as to full history — cross allowed only as to open case forming plea, recent crimen falsi or convictions under supervision.
4. Admission of officers’ testimony about (a) Burrell’s on-scene description of shooter and (b) witnesses being present but uncooperative	Williams argued these were hearsay and violated Confrontation Clause (officers repeating witness descriptions/noncooperation).	Testimony offered to explain police course of conduct and investigative steps (not to prove truth of descriptions); cautionary jury instruction was given; statements rebutted defense attack on investigative adequacy.	Admitted — not hearsay when used to explain police conduct; no Confrontation Clause violation; jury instructed about limited purpose.

Key Cases Cited

Rega v. Commonwealth, 933 A.2d 977 (Pa. 2007) (jury presumed to follow limiting instructions)
Buterbaugh v. Commonwealth, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate waiver for undeveloped claims)
Martin v. Commonwealth, 101 A.3d 706 (Pa. 2014) (standard for reviewing suppression factual findings)
Parker v. Commonwealth, 104 A.3d 17 (Pa. Super. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Hairston v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 657 (Pa. 2014) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Trinidad v. Commonwealth, 96 A.3d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2014) (out-of-court statements admissible to explain police conduct)
Dargan v. Commonwealth, 897 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 2006) (informant statements admissible to explain investigation)
Murphy v. Commonwealth, 657 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1995) (prior consistent statements admissible to rebut fabrication charge)
Kunkle v. Commonwealth, 79 A.3d 1173 (Pa. Super. 2013) (two-pronged Miranda waiver analysis)
Pruitt v. Commonwealth, 951 A.2d 307 (Pa. 2008) (waiver knowing and intelligent standard)
Wright v. Commonwealth, 865 A.2d 894 (Pa. Super. 2004) (pre-arrest delay burden shifting)
Armstrong v. Commonwealth, 74 A.3d 228 (Pa. Super. 2013) (reliability test for pretrial identifications)