Commonwealth v. Adams, 39 A.3d 310

Appellant Shataan Adams was convicted of second-degree murder, burglary, aggravated indecent assault, and criminal conspiracy to commit robbery.
The Commonwealth sought to admit testimony about Adams’s pre-arrest silence and closing arguments referenced that silence.
The victims and defendants were involved in a home invasion in Highlands Garden, Chester, during which the victim was killed by a gunshot wound.
Witnesses included the victim’s wife M.B., a co-conspirator Redfain, and neighbor Dyeisha Wallace, who described planning and participation in the robbery and assault.
The trial court sentenced Adams to life for murder, plus consecutive terms for robbery and burglary; the burglary sentence was later identified as illegal and merged for sentencing.
The appellate court held that Adams’s right to silence was not violated, the evidence supported aggravated indecent assault under accomplice liability, and the burglary sentence must merge with murder for sentencing purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pre-arrest silence references violated Adams's rights	Adams argues silence violated Pennsylvania and US constitutional rights.	Commonwealth contends references were permissible under Molina and not prejudicial.	No constitutional violation; references were permissible and harmless in context.
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated indecent assault	Appellant argues insufficient evidence of accomplice liability or conspiracy.	Commonwealth proved accomplice liability via aiding, abetting, and planning with Redfain and Hammond.	Sufficient evidence to support aggravated indecent assault under accomplice liability.
Legality of sentence; merger with underlying felony	Burglary sentence should merge into second-degree murder sentence as the underlying felony.	Trial court erred by imposing a separate burglary sentence.	Burglary merges with murder; judgment of sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (post-Miranda silence; prosecutorial comment may violate due process)
Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (U.S. 1980) (pre-arrest silence; reference does not violate due process when used for impeachment)
Turner v. Commonwealth, 454 A.2d 537 (Pa. 1992) (pre-arrest silence rule; not protected to the same extent as post-arrest silence)
Bolus, 545 Pa. 103 (Pa. 1996) (pre-arrest silence impeachment when defendant testified)
DiNicola, 866 A.2d 329 (Pa. 2005) (limits on use of silence; commentary permissible as fair response)
Spotz, 870 A.2d 822 (Pa. 2005) (harmless error framework for improper references to silence)
Molina, 33 A.3d 51 (Pa. Super. 2011) (constitutional protection for pre-arrest silence with narrow admissibility; closing remarks analyzed)
Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (fair response doctrine to defense opening; closing remarks permissible in context)