Commonwealth v. Cox
115 A.3d 333
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Defendant Myron Cox was convicted after a shooting on August 31, 2011; victim Taza Clardy was shot in the leg; eyewitnesses placed a person in dark hoodie/jeans near the scene and a BMW that left quickly.
- Commonwealth presented testimony about a fight several weeks earlier between Cox (and his brother Jerome) and friends of witness Ashley Cochran over a $5 card‑game debt.
- The Commonwealth argued the prior fight tended to show motive for the later shooting; defense objected to admission under Pa.R.E. 404(b) and for lack of notice.
- Trial evidence was largely circumstantial: Clardy and Cochran could not identify Cox as the shooter, only that he was present and dressed similarly; ten casings were fired from the same gun.
- The Superior Court majority held the admission of the prior fight as proof of motive was an abuse of discretion, vacated the judgment of sentence, and remanded for retrial. Dissent would have affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior fight under Rule 404(b) | Evidence was admissible to show motive and part of the case history | Prior fight was irrelevant to motive for shooting Clardy and highly prejudicial; no logical connection | Reversed: admission was abuse of discretion — probative value did not outweigh prejudice |
| Notice of 404(b) evidence | Commonwealth: learned of fight shortly before trial and promptly notified defense | Cox: insufficient/late notice denied fair trial | Majority did not reach notice issue because first issue dispositive |
| Sufficiency/degree of injury for attempted homicide enhancement | Commonwealth: facts support attempted homicide with serious bodily injury | Cox: evidence insufficient to show risk of death/serious impairment to justify enhanced sentence | Not reached (majority disposed on 404(b) issue) |
| Defense counsel "opening the door" to character/prior convictions | Commonwealth: defense elicited opinion inviting rebuttal evidence | Cox: question was improper and did not open the door | Not reached (majority disposed on 404(b) issue) |
Key Cases Cited
- Weiss v. Commonwealth, 565 Pa. 504, 776 A.2d 958 (standard of review for admissibility: abuse of discretion)
- Collins v. Commonwealth, 70 A.3d 1245 (Pa. Super.) (404(b) motive and probative‑prejudice balancing)
- Paddy v. Commonwealth, 569 Pa. 47, 800 A.2d 294 (prior bad‑acts admissible for legitimate purposes but not propensity)
- Kinard v. Commonwealth, 95 A.3d 279 (Pa. Super.) (other‑acts evidence can improperly predispose jury to convict)
- Ross v. Commonwealth, 57 A.3d 85 (Pa. Super.) (requirement of specific logical connection for 404(b) motive use)
- Burton v. Commonwealth, 770 A.2d 771 (Pa. Super.) (res gestae / "complete story" rationale for admitting related acts)