Commonwealth v. Akbar
91 A.3d 227
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Akbar and co-defendant Lewis allegedly robbed and shot Carter on Nov. 13, 2008; Appellant fired once, Lewis fired multiple shots; Holmes and Carter identified Appellant and Lewis; police obtained warrant after Lewis implicated Appellant; redacted Lewis statement read at trial; suppression and confrontation concerns premised on Bruton; trial court denied severance and admitted audio tapes; two second-strike mandatory minimums were imposed on aggravated assault and conspiracy; on appeal convictions affirmed but sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance and Bruton concerns with redacted confession | Akbar argues redaction still prejudiced; Bruton violation; severance warranted | Commonwealth contends redaction and cautionary instructions cured prejudice | Severance denial upheld; redaction harmless given overwhelming evidence and cautions. |
| Admission of 911 and police tapes without confrontation | Tapes are hearsay and violate Confrontation Clause | Record shows tapes explain police conduct, not truth of content | Waived Confrontation Clause claim; admissible as non-hearsay and for police conduct. |
| Mistrial claim over reference to Appellant's photo number | Photo number implies prior criminal history; mistrial warranted | Reference merely administrative; no inference of prior crimes | No abuse of discretion; mistrial denied. |
| Two mandatory minimums under 9714 improper in single transaction | Two second-strike sentences valid under 9714(a)(1) and (a)(2) | Sequenced strikes require opportunity to reform; double enhancement illegal | Sentence illegal; remand to impose one second-strike sentence and void the other. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Travers, 768 A.2d 845 (Pa. 2001) (redacted statements may avoid Bruton violations with proper limits)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (incriminating confession of co-defendant violates confrontation when admitted against defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Birdsong, 24 A.3d 319 (Pa. 2011) (severance decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. McGlone, 716 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 1998) (harmless error analysis when Bruton violation but overwhelming evidence)