212 A.3d 91
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- On June 11, 2015, a drive-by shooting on Akron Street wounded Tia Hughes and Troy Green; eyewitnesses identified Brian King as the shooter and placed Dante T. Jordan nearby with King before and after the shooting.
- Milagros Rivera saw Jordan run past her house immediately after the shots, holding a partially covered handgun; police later recovered a .40 caliber pistol from the furnace in Jordan’s home, and forensic comparison linked cartridge casings from the scene to that gun.
- Jordan was charged at two dockets with attempted homicide, aggravated assault, conspiracy, weapons offenses, and related counts; King pled guilty separately and did not testify at Jordan’s trial.
- A jury convicted Jordan of all counts and the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence (later conceded illegal by the Commonwealth); Jordan appealed arguing insufficiency of the evidence and a Sixth Amendment public-trial violation.
- The Superior Court held the evidence sufficed to permit retrial (denying discharge) on accomplice/conspiracy theories but found the trial court erred by excluding Jordan’s mother and stepfather from voir dire without considering that limited admission as a reasonable alternative to wholesale closure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Jordan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for accomplice/conspiracy to attempted murder | Circumstantial "web of evidence": association with King before shooting, flight with the gun, hiding gun in furnace, motive, and shared conduct establish agreement or aiding to kill Green | Mere presence, post‑crime concealment, and partial concealment of gun show at most accessory after the fact; no proof of agreement or specific intent to kill | Evidence sufficient to deny discharge; jury reasonably could infer conspiracy/accomplice liability from presence, post‑crime conduct, motive, and concealment — conviction stands but retrial permitted (no discharge) |
| Right to public trial — exclusion of family from voir dire | Court had overriding interest in courtroom security and juror/witness safety due to an intimidating crowd incident | Excluding entire public did not justify denying specific request to admit defendant’s mother and stepfather when they were not part of the disturbance; court failed to consider reasonable alternatives | Reversed and remanded for new trial: closure to general public was justified, but trial court abused discretion by not considering limited admission of family members; structural error requires new trial |
| Sentencing legality / multiplicity (ancillary) | N/A (Commonwealth conceded sentence illegal) | Jordan raised sentencing and potential multiplicity under inchoate-offense statutory rule | Court noted sentencing issues are moot because it ordered a new trial; did not resolve multiplicity question |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (framework for when courtroom closure is permissible)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2010) (court must consider limited admission requests and preserve right to public voir dire)
- Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 501 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1985) (trial courts may restrict public access when unmanageable public threatens orderly administration; safeguards required)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 188 A.3d 400 (Pa. 2018) (requirements for proving conspiracy: agreement, shared intent, overt act; proof often inferential)
- Commonwealth v. Smyrnes, 154 A.3d 741 (Pa. 2017) (accomplice liability requires specific intent for first‑degree murder; accomplice liability principles)