Com. v. Wright, R.
1734 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- On October 18, 2014, after an argument at a party, Robert Wright approached a car driven by Kendra Forrest; witnesses say he smashed the front passenger window and a "pop" was heard and the car later had a flattened tire.
- Two eyewitnesses (Forrest and her daughter Keona Henderson) testified they saw the handle/butt of a gun in Wright's hand and Henderson testified she saw him shoot at the tire; police recovered the flattened tire and the car with shattered glass but found no gun, projectile, or ballistic evidence.
- Wright admitted breaking the window with his hand but denied possessing or firing a gun; his grandfather also testified Wright had no gun and did not shoot at the tire.
- Following a waiver (bench) trial, the trial court convicted Wright of firearms offenses (18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105, 6106, 6108), possession of an instrument of crime (§ 907), four counts of recklessly endangering another person (§ 2705), and related counts; Wright was sentenced to an aggregate 5–11 years' imprisonment.
- Wright filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement claiming the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence because there was no physical/forensic evidence linking him to a gun, no gun was recovered, and his testimony denying possession was credible.
- The trial court denied the weight claim, finding the Commonwealth witnesses credible, Wright’s testimony self-serving, and concluding the convictions were supported despite lack of physical corroboration; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions for firearms offenses and REAP were against the weight of the evidence | Wright: verdicts shock conscience because no physical, forensic, or ballistic evidence; no gun recovered; his testimony denying possession was credible | Commonwealth/Trial Court: eyewitness testimony credible (saw gun handle, heard a "pop" and observed shooting at tire); Wright fled scene; lack of physical evidence does not make verdict shocking | Affirmed: weight claim rejected; trial court credited Commonwealth witnesses and found conviction supported by testimony and surrounding facts |
| Whether REAP convictions required proof of a firearm and danger of death/serious bodily injury | Wright: if no gun was used, victims were not placed in danger of death/serious bodily injury as required for § 2705 | Trial Court: even assuming no gun, smashing a window of a moving car occupied by five people created a present ability to inflict harm and exposed occupants to danger (e.g., driver losing control) | Affirmed: REAP convictions sustained — conduct met recklessness and danger elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (weight-of-the-evidence review is deferential; relief reserved for extraordinary circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24 (Pa. 2011) (new trial for weight claims only when verdict shocks one's sense of justice)
- Commonwealth v. Jarowecki, 923 A.2d 425 (Pa. Super. 2007) (fact-finder decides weight of evidence and may credit all, some, or none of testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 863 A.2d 1185 (Pa. Super. 2004) (credibility disputes rarely succeed as weight claims unless evidence is so unreliable as to be conjecture)
- Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements of § 2705: recklessness, conduct, causation placing another in danger of death or serious bodily injury)