Commonwealth v. Flamer, 53 A.3d 82

Background

Commonwealth appealed two interlocutory orders denying part of a motion in limine seeking admission of evidence tying Marvin and Nafeast Flamer to a conspiracy to kill a Commonwealth witness, Abdul Taylor.
Taylor was killed in 2010; Moment, Jr. and others were on trial for Moment’s murder, with Taylor’s death looming as a potential motive relevance.
Trial court admitted limited conspiracy evidence (photo with White, and cause of death); excluded most other conspiracy evidence as irrelevant, cumulative, or prejudicial.
On automating remands, the court later allowed limited admission of certain phone-conversation content (some calls) but kept others inadmissible.
Commonwealth challenged the rulings as to admission of multiple items (police/crime-scene testimonies, DNA, White’s confession, Malik Sutton’s testimony, Taylor’s relatives’ testimony, Nafeast’s writings, and select phone calls).
The appellate court reversed in part and affirmed in part, concluding abuse of discretion in excluding several items but not in others, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in excluding evidence tying White to Taylor’s murder?	Flamers argue this evidence is highly probative of conspiracy and consciousness of guilt under res gestae and similar logic.	The court held much of it irrelevant, cumulative, or prejudicial and improper to link to Taylor’s case.	Abuse of discretion; evidence appropriately admissible to show history and consciousness of guilt.
Whether evidence of the police/crime-scene testimony, DNA, and White’s confession to Taylor’s murder was improperly excluded as relevant to the conspiracy.	These items are highly probative and necessary to prove conspiracy and witness-tampering motives.	The court found them inadmissible on grounds of irrelevance, prejudice, or cumulativeness.	Abuse of discretion; these items should have been admitted.
Whether Malik Sutton’s testimony about White’s plot to kill Taylor was properly excluded as irrelevant or prejudicial.	Sutton’s testimony directly links motive and conspiracy to prevent Taylor’s testimony.	It risked undue prejudice and overlapped with other evidence.	Abuse of discretion; Sutton’s testimony was highly probative and not unduly prejudicial.
Was admissibility of Taylor’s mother and girlfriend’s testimony about Taylor’s fear properly limited by trial court as irrelevant or prejudicial?	Such testimony links Taylor to the conspiracy and shows motive to prevent testimony.	Testimony could be prejudicial if it creates sympathy, but may be admissible if connected to the crime.	Abuse of discretion; admissible to establish conspiracy and motive.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in excluding Nafeast’s writings and May 8, 2010 phone conversation content?	Writings and conversation bolster evidence of conspiratorial planning and awareness.	Exclusion was based on potential prejudice and irrelevance.	Abuse of discretion; writings and that portion of the conversation were admissible.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Paddy, 569 Pa. 47, 800 A.2d 294 (Pa. 2002) (motive evidence admissible; prior bad acts may prove strength of motive)
Commonwealth v. Murphy, 540 Pa. 318, 657 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1995) (res gestae and history-of-the-case admissibility)
Commonwealth v. Goldblum, 478 Pa. 455, 447 A.2d 234 (Pa. 1982) (consciousness-of-guilt evidence admissible to show culpability)
Commonwealth v. Yarris, 519 Pa. 571, 549 A.2d 513 (Pa. 1988) (evidence about victim admissible to establish motive)
Commonwealth v. Foley, 38 A.3d 882 (Pa. Super. 2012) (prejudice standard for admissibility; not merely because evidence is harmful)
Commonwealth v. G.D.M., Sr., 926 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 2007) (corroborative evidence and non-cumulative characterization)