Com. v. Wynder, L.
Com. v. Wynder, L. No. 306 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- On March 22, 2013, Lavell Wynder shot Aaron Cole outside the 22nd Street Café in Philadelphia; Cole died two days later from five gunshot wounds (three to the head, one chest, one back).
- Police compiled a 12-minute surveillance-video montage showing Wynder loitering outside the bar for about ten minutes, approaching Cole after he exited, retrieving a firearm from his waistband, firing multiple shots, then walking to Cole and shooting again.
- Ballistics and medical testimony established the wounds struck vital body parts; several wounds independently could cause death.
- Witness statements (including from Wynder’s girlfriend and mother) included admissions by Wynder; a witness statement identifying Wynder was used to impeach trial testimony when that witness became uncooperative.
- Wynder did not present a defense at trial; a jury convicted him of first-degree murder, possession of an instrument of crime, and firearms offenses; the court sentenced him to life imprisonment.
- Wynder appealed, challenging sufficiency (specific intent/premeditation) and weight of the evidence; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether evidence supports first-degree murder (premeditation/specific intent) | Commonwealth: surveillance video, lying in wait, retrieval of gun, multiple shots to head/vitals permit inference of premeditation and specific intent | Wynder: evidence shows benign reason to loiter and a spontaneous shooting; no proof of premeditation or specific intent beyond speculation | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence (lying in wait, retrieval of gun, multiple shots to vital areas) supports premeditation and specific intent |
| Weight of the evidence: whether verdict shocks conscience and requires new trial | Commonwealth: evidence was strong and coherent; video and forensic testimony supported verdict | Wynder: verdict rests on speculation; evidence was unreliable/contradictory and required new trial | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict not so contrary to evidence as to shock justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jordan, 65 A.3d 318 (Pa. 2013) (design to kill can form in a fraction of a second; defines premeditation/deliberation)
- Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2002) (premeditation exists when assailant consciously intends to cause death)
- Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128 (Pa. 2011) (use of deadly weapon on vital part allows inference of specific intent to kill)
- Commonwealth v. Matthews, 870 A.2d 924 (Pa. Super. 2006) (intent may be inferred from conduct and attendant circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Groff, 514 A.2d 1382 (Pa. Super. 1986) (lying in wait and preparation support finding of premeditation)
- Commonwealth v. Karkaria, 625 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1993) (new trial warranted when evidence supporting guilt is so unreliable as to be conjectural)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for appellate review of weight claims; trial court's denial of new trial given deference)