Commonwealth v. Davis
17 A.3d 390
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Davis was charged in connection with Barron's 2004 murder and Flournoy's 2006 shooting; Flournoy identified Davis as shooter; suppression of identification motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing.
- Davis and alleged co-conspirator Willis were tried together in January 2009; the jury convicted Davis of murder, conspiracy, attempted murder, aggravated assault,recklessly endangering another person, retaliation against a witness, intimidating a witness, and two counts of possession of an instrument of crime.
- Davis received concurrent sentences: life for murder, 10–20 years for conspiracy, 10–20 years for attempted murder, 1–2 years for retaliation, 5–10 years for intimidating a witness, and 1–2 years for each weapon-instrument conviction; no penalty for aggravated assault or REAP.
- Appellate issues: (1) suppression of Flournoy's identification; (2) impeachment of Flournoy with prior convictions for criminal mischief and defiant trespass.
- Court’s standard: review of suppression rulings uses totality-of-circumstances reliability; credibility of witnesses is for the trial court unless clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Flournoy identification was properly admitted | Davis argues the photo array was suggestive and should be suppressed | Davis contends identification reliability supports suppression or at least invalidates identification | Identification admitted; independent-basis reliability supported despite suggestiveness |
| Whether Flournoy could be impeached with his prior convictions | Davis argues crimen falsi convictions (criminal mischief and defiant trespass) impeachability | Commonwealth contends not all convictions qualify as crimen falsi and record insufficient for mischief; defiant trespass not crimen falsi | Trial court did not err; Flournoy’s criminal mischief conviction not shown as crimen falsi; defiant trespass not inherently crimen falsi and record lacked foundation to impeach |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Anthony, 977 A.2d 1182 (Pa.Super.2009) (identification-review framework; reliability governs admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. Moye, 836 A.2d 973 (Pa.Super.2003) (central inquiry: reliability under totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 564 Pa. 505 (2001) (independent-basis requirement for identification when suggestive procedure used)
- Commonwealth v. McGaghey, 510 Pa. 225 (1986) (independent-basis for in-court identification after suggestive procedure)
- Commonwealth v. Cascardo, 981 A.2d 245 (Pa.Super.2009) (two-step tutela for crimen falsi impeachment analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 585 Pa. 547 (2005) (conviction record must establish the specific crime; specificity required for impeachment)
- Commonwealth v. Coleman, 664 A.2d 1381 (Pa.Super.1995) (two-step crimen falsi inquiry; burden on proponent)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 559 A.2d 579 (Pa.Super.1989) (trespass as crimen falsi—no precedential value due to lack of majority)