Commonwealth v. Cole
135 A.3d 191
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- On December 30, 2010, Tersaun Cole visited an Elmore Square apartment; shortly after he left accompanied by three men, gunshots were heard and Teante Hill was shot and later identified as the victim.
- Multiple eyewitnesses (Denise Hayden, Edwin Peoples, Deron Townsend) and security camera footage placed Cole among three individuals fleeing the scene; witnesses identified Cole in a photo array.
- Detective Satler recovered and reviewed surveillance video; he testified and narrated portions of the footage at trial to explain timing, positions, and movements shown on the video.
- During jury deliberations the jury requested to view the surveillance video; with defense counsel’s consent, a district attorney office analyst (plus a tipstaff) went into the jury room to play the video and left without speaking to jurors.
- A jury convicted Cole of first-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and carrying a firearm without a license; court sentenced Cole to life without parole for murder and a consecutive 5–10 year mandatory term on robbery under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712; Cole appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allowing a DA office employee into jury room to play video during deliberations violated fair trial/counsel rights | Juror contact with prosecutor’s staff created a reasonable likelihood of prejudice under Bradley; warrants new trial | Analyst entered with defense consent, made no substantive comments; no evidence of prejudice | Waived for lack of contemporaneous objection; meritless if reviewed — no reasonable likelihood of prejudice shown |
| Whether Detective Satler’s narration of surveillance video was improper (speculation, lay opinion, or unfairly prejudicial) | Narration exceeded permissible lay testimony (Pa.R.E. 602, 701) and risked unfair prejudice (Pa.R.E. 403) | Satler had personal knowledge and experience, described what the video depicted to aid jurors; narration was probative and not unfairly prejudicial | No abuse of discretion; narration admissible as perceptual, relevant testimony to aid jury’s viewing |
| Whether imposition of mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 for robbery was unconstitutional post-Alleyne | Mandatory minimum sentencing under § 9712 violates Alleyne principles | Commonwealth and trial court conceded resentencing was required | Sentence on robbery vacated; case remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bradley, 459 A.2d 733 (Pa. 1983) (ex parte juror communications require reversal only if likely to prejudice a party)
- Commonwealth v. Baumhammers, 960 A.2d 59 (Pa. 2008) (contemporaneous objection requirement; failure to object waives claim)
- Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096 (Pa. 2012) (tests for extraneous influence causing reasonable likelihood of prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Stark, 526 A.2d 383 (Pa. Super. 1987) (trial court’s discretion on videotaped evidence admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2002) (relevance and probative-value standards for evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Stallworth, 781 A.2d 110 (Pa. 2001) (standards for demonstrating relevance in criminal trials)
- Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding § 9712 unconstitutional under Alleyne)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (any fact that increases mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)