Commonwealth v. Golphin
161 A.3d 1009
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Appellant Edward Golphin lived with the victim S.B. (age 4) and her mother Josephita; evidence showed a pattern of physical abuse to S.B. and other children in the household.
- On July 16, 2013, S.B. was taken to CHOP unresponsive and was pronounced dead; autopsy found a liver laceration causing fatal internal bleeding plus multiple old and new injuries (rib fractures, tibia fracture, bite marks, etc.).
- Josephita admitted Appellant repeatedly assaulted S.B., including punching, kicking, biting, and hitting with a belt; she pleaded guilty to related charges and implicated Appellant in S.B.’s death.
- Police investigation produced eyewitness accounts, photographic and medical evidence, and a forensic dentist’s opinion matching Appellant’s dentition to bite marks.
- A jury convicted Golphin of third-degree murder, conspiracy, aggravated assault, and endangering the welfare of a child (EWOC); court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 52.5 to 105 years.
- On appeal Golphin raised sufficiency of evidence, pretrial evidentiary rulings (other-bad-acts and tender-years statements), juror challenges for cause, limits on cross-examination, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and merger at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Golphin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for third-degree murder & conspiracy | Evidence (autopsy, pattern of abuse, eyewitness statements, bite-match) proves malice and concerted agreement beyond reasonable doubt | Insufficient proof of malice; no agreement with Josephita for conspiracy; EWOC requires guardian/supervisory duty | Affirmed convictions; circumstantial proof and witness testimony sufficient to infer malice and agreement |
| Admissibility of other-crimes/bad-acts evidence | Prior abuse of S.B., A.G., Sean B., and Josephita admissible to show plan, intent, absence of mistake, and chain of events | Admission was unfairly prejudicial and propensity evidence barred by Rule 404(b) | Trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence relevant to pattern, plan, and natural development of events |
| Admission of prior out-of-court statements of Sean B. (Tender Years) | Statements admissible under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985.1 (tender-years): in-camera finding showed reliability and relevance | Statements lacked indicia of reliability and were not sufficiently spontaneous or trustworthy | Admissible; in-camera findings upheld—statements reliable, repeated, spontaneous, age-appropriate, and relevant |
| Challenges for cause to prospective jurors 12 & 42 | Jurors’ initial comments could show bias, requiring dismissal for cause | Jurors after questioning said they could follow instructions and be impartial; peremptory strikes used if retained | Denial of challenges upheld; judge properly rehabilitated jurors on the record |
| Scope of cross-examination re: alleged Facebook rape accusation by Josephita | Defense sought to impeach Josephita indirectly by questioning Cobb about the allegation to show Josephita’s propensity to blame others | Trial court barred specific-instance extrinsic impeachment under Rule 608/608(b) | Upheld; trial court acted within discretion—specific-instance extrinsic evidence not admissible to attack witness’s truthfulness |
| Prosecutorial remark on redirect ("irrelevancies…past 20 minutes") — motion for mistrial | Prosecutor’s comment was a permissible response to defense’s lengthy cross-examination and aimed to refocus jury | Remark was prejudicial and required mistrial | Denial of mistrial affirmed; comment was oratorical flair and not so prejudicial as to deny fair trial |
| Merger of sentences (third-degree murder vs. aggravated assault and EWOC) | Merger required if offenses arise from single act and elements overlap | Argued aggravated assault and EWOC should merge into murder sentence | Rejected: EWOC and murder have distinct elements (age, mens rea), and charging documents/facts showed aggravated assault arose from separate acts distinct in time from the lethal beating; consecutive sentences permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Marquez, 980 A.2d 145 (Pa. Super. 2009) (malice and third-degree murder definitions)
- Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 2004) (conspiracy requires agreement; intent often proven circumstantially)
- Commonwealth v. Devine, 26 A.3d 1139 (Pa. Super. 2011) (malice may be inferred from totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Walter, 93 A.3d 442 (Pa. 2014) (tender-years hearsay exception and reliability factors)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 115 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Penn, 132 A.3d 498 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for challenges for cause and juror rehabilitation)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 54 A.3d 332 (Pa. 2012) (prosecutorial misconduct standard—reversible only if comments create fixed bias)
- Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 985 A.2d 830 (Pa. 2009) (Section 9765 merger test—single act and element inclusion required)
- Commonwealth v. Pettersen, 49 A.3d 903 (Pa. Super. 2012) (multiple criminal acts beyond those necessary for a lesser offense avoid merger)