Com. v. Williams, M.
3078 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 27, 2017Background
- On Jan. 10, 2012 Philadelphia police pursued a silver Chevy Impala after an unidentified woman ran to officers saying she had been robbed; officers later identified Michael Williams as the driver after a high‑speed chase during which a passenger fired at police.
- After the chase the car was disabled; two passengers fled and were arrested with two loaded handguns; Williams fled on foot, entered an occupied home through an unlocked back door asking to be hidden or given clothes, and was then detained outside when he could not verify residency.
- A jury convicted Williams of conspiracy (to commit aggravated assault), burglary, and eluding; he was sentenced to an aggregate 17–34 years’ imprisonment plus 8 years’ probation.
- Williams’s direct appeal was initially quashed as untimely; he secured nunc pro tunc reinstatement of appeal via PCRA and raised multiple evidentiary, sufficiency, sentencing, and prosecutorial‑misconduct claims.
- The Superior Court affirmed: it treated the unidentified woman’s statement as non‑hearsay (offered to explain officers’ conduct), found sufficient evidence for burglary and conspiracy, deemed several claims waived, and rejected challenges to sentencing and prosecutorial remarks.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | Commonwealth / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of unidentified woman’s statement to police | Should be excluded as hearsay and prejudicial; not an excited utterance | Statement was not offered for truth but to explain officers’ conduct; trial court gave limiting instruction | Admission proper; not hearsay; limiting instruction cured prejudice |
| Admission of bullet projectile | Projectile had zero probative value (could not be tied to recovered guns) and was prejudicial | Williams failed to object at trial; asked only for offer of proof | Waived for appeal due to lack of trial objection |
| Sufficiency of evidence for burglary | No proof Williams committed a crime after entering dwelling; therefore insufficient | Evidence showed Williams entered occupied home while fleeing to avoid arrest — intent to commit a crime (flight) supports burglary | Sufficient evidence; conviction affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit aggravated assault | No proof of agreement; Williams acquitted of aggravated assault so conspiracy unsupported | Circumstantial evidence (joint flight, high‑speed driving while co‑defendant shot at police, coordinated escape) supports inference of agreement; conspirator liability independent of acquittal | Sufficient evidence; conviction affirmed |
| Challenge to underlying object of conspiracy and jury instruction | Trial court erred in treating object offense as aggravated assault and failing to identify underlying crime | Information identified attempted assault on officers as overt act; acquittal on underlying charge does not bar conspiracy conviction | Claim lacks merit and/or was waived for failure to object; conspiracy and substantive offense are distinct |
| Sentencing excess / discretionary aspects | Ten–20 years on burglary greatly exceeds guideline range and is excessive | Court relied on PSI, defendant’s criminal history, disciplinary records, victims’ statements, public safety and recidivism concerns; sentence within statutory range and court stated reasons for upward deviation | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gill, 158 A.3d 719 (Pa. Super. 2017) (evidentiary abuse of discretion standard)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 42 A.3d 1017 (Pa. 2012) (out‑of‑court statements not hearsay when offered to explain conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Aikens, 168 A.3d 137 (Pa. 2017) (jurors presumed to follow limiting instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Scott, 146 A.3d 775 (Pa. Super. 2016) (sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence standards)
- Commonwealth v. Devine, 26 A.3d 1139 (Pa. Super. 2011) (flight and related conduct can support inference of conspiracy)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010 (Pa. Super. 2002) (conspirators liable for co‑conspirators’ acts in furtherance of conspiracy)
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 879 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2005) (acquittal of underlying offense does not preclude conspiracy conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (scope of permissible prosecutorial argument)
- Commonwealth v. Burno, 94 A.3d 756 (Pa. 2014) (prosecutor may argue reasonable inferences; not every intemperate remark requires new trial)
- Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Kitchen, 162 A.3d 1140 (Pa. Super. 2017) (requirements when sentencing outside guidelines)