Commonwealth v. Brown
71 A.3d 1009
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Brown, age 16, committed a September 28–29, 2006 murder in Swissvale, threatening Stepien with a gun, firing two warning shots, then shooting Stepien in the head.
- Brown and associates fled to Terico Ross’s home; Brown stated in front of friends that he killed someone.
- Brown later committed an October 6, 2006 robbery at a Yesco location, placing a gun to Yesco’s head and discarding the weapon when chased; Officer Keenan recovered the gun.
- Ballistics showed the Yesco robbery gun and the Stepien murder gun were both .22 caliber; bullets shared similar class characteristics, though the murder bullet could not be positively matched.
- Witnesses Smith and Meggison testified at trial; both had delayed reporting and testified reluctantly due to fear, with credibility assessed by the jury.
- Brown was convicted after a three-day trial of second-degree murder, robbery, carrying a firearm without a license, and possession of a firearm by a minor, and sentenced to life without parole plus a consecutive 3–6 year term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight of the evidence against Brown | Brown argues the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence. | Brown asserts credibility issues with Smith and Meggison require a new trial. | No abuse; verdict not against the weight of the evidence. |
| Admission of the gun and expert testimony linking guns | Brown claims no connection established between the Yesco gun and Stepien's murder weapon. | Brown contends expert testimony did not illuminate whether the guns were connected. | Admissible; testimony tended to prove Brown had a similar weapon to the murder gun. |
| Retroactive Miller/Knox relief for juvenile life without parole | Brown seeks resentencing under Miller and Knox for a compulsory life-without-parole sentence for a juvenile. | Brown preserves the issue; Miller should apply retroactively; nonwaivable legality challenge. | Vacate judgment and remand for Miller/Knox resentencing; Miller applies retroactively. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Howard, 373 Pa. Super. 246 (Pa. Super. 1988) (cruel-and-unusual punishment challenge is a legality-of-sentence issue)
- Commonwealth v. Yasipour, 957 A.2d 734 (Pa. Super. 2008) (cruel-and-unusual punishment claim not waived as legality of the sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732 (Pa. Super. 2012) (vacated mandatory life-without-parole for juvenile; Miller framework adopted)
- Commonwealth v. Peterson, - Pa. -, 67 A.3d 789 (2013) (Supreme Court recognized legality challenge to mandatory juvenile LWOP as Miller-related)
- Commonwealth v. Lofton, 57 A.3d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2012) (raised issue of retroactivity/legality under Miller dicta)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 609 Pa. 605 (2011) (retroactivity of new law on direct appeal preserved)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Batts, — Pa. —, 66 A.3d 286 (2013) (reiterates Miller/Knox considerations for resentencing juveniles)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 537 Pa. 1 (1994) (admissibility of weapon evidence when not positively linked to crime)