Commonwealth v. Brown
134 A.3d 1097
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Late-night altercation outside El Ran’s Bar in Philadelphia escalated; defendant Rasheen Brown (Appellant) allegedly fetched a .40 and, after a command to “light him,” shot the victim multiple times; victim later died.
- Police recovered five .40 cal casings; bar surveillance footage captured events leading up to and after the shooting (not the shooter clearly), and several witnesses initially identified Brown to police.
- At trial three key Commonwealth witnesses (bartender William Fowler, Lalana Brown, and Christopher Graham) recanted their pretrial statements; Commonwealth introduced those prior inconsistent statements for impeachment.
- Jury convicted Brown of first-degree murder, conspiracy, possession/prohibited carrying of a firearm, and possessing an instrument of crime; trial court imposed mandatory life sentence; Brown proceeded pro se part of the post‑sentence process and appealed.
- On appeal Brown raised weight-of-the-evidence, evidentiary and prosecutorial-misconduct claims, a challenged jury instruction, and a request for remand for after-discovered-evidence based on newspaper reports about alleged detective misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight of the evidence | Prior statements and physical evidence (casings) support conviction; jury entitled to credit those statements over recantations | Conviction against weight: recantations, alleged coerced ID, surveillance video allegedly exculpatory, ballistics suggesting shooter was very close | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; jury could credit prior inconsistent statements and other evidence |
| Improper elicitation of custody/prior record | Questioning about jail visits was impeachment to show witness contact with defendant, not to show other crimes | Improperly suggested defendant had prior record/incarceration for other crimes | Denied: questioning clarified defendant was in custody for these charges; court gave limiting instruction; no prejudice |
| Surveillance video narration & frame-by-frame playback | Detective’s limited narration assisted jury in following footage; frame-by-frame viewing aided juror comprehension | Detective improperly identified people and prosecution denied defense ability to preview frame-by-frame playback | Denied: court limited testimony, sustained objections to identity speculation, allowed descriptive narration under Rule 701; frame-by-frame permissible and discovery was complied with |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (three comments) | Arguments were fair inferences from evidence (fear explains recantations); references to defendant’s brother’s gun use were brief; prosecutor’s opinion on truth of prior statements supported by record | Misconduct: commented on witness intimidation without evidence, suggested propensity via brother, vouched for witnesses’ truthfulness | Denied: inferences about fear supported by witness statements; objection to brother comment sustained but failure to request curative relief waived issue; other points waived for lack of objection |
| Jury instruction on reasonable doubt (court’s misspeaking) | Instruction overall emphasized Commonwealth’s burden throughout | Court misstated phrase implying defendant could meet burden | Waived: no contemporaneous objection; any error harmless given repeated correct instructions |
| After-discovered evidence (newspaper articles re: detectives) | Media reports suggested detectives had histories of misconduct; counsel sought remand for evidentiary hearing | Articles are not evidence; proposed witnesses would only impeach detectives about other cases, not add case‑specific exculpatory proof | Denied: articles insufficient per Castro; proposed evidence would be only impeachment and thus fails Pagan/Chamberlain test |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for weight-of-the-evidence review and trial court discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 1139 (Pa. 2012) (prior inconsistent statements can support conviction when witnesses recant at trial)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (appellate review principles cited)
- Commonwealth v. Jordan, 65 A.3d 318 (Pa. 2013) (trial court's discretion to playback surveillance video slowly)
- Commonwealth v. Castro, 93 A.3d 818 (Pa. 2014) (newspaper allegations are not evidence; movant must specify proffered proof for after-discovered-evidence hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 950 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2008) (standards for after-discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2011) (proposed new evidence must be producible and admissible)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (defendant’s right to proceed pro se)