Commonwealth v. Kendricks
30 A.3d 499
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellant Kendricks was charged with criminal homicide for the September 20, 2008 shooting death of Kirk Lipscomb at the Bull Run Tavern in Luzerne County.
- Trial occurred May 3–7, 2010 with four eyewitnesses testifying to the shooting.
- Appellant was convicted of third-degree murder on May 7, 2010 and sentenced to 20–40 years in prison (240–480 months).
- Pretrial motions were heard in April 2010; the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on April 16, 2010.
- Post-sentence motions were denied on October 4, 2010, leading to this timely appeal.
- Appellant challenges evidence rulings, jury instructions, and sufficiency/weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of autopsy photographs | Kendricks argues the two autopsy photos were inflammatory and outweighed by probative value. | Commonwealth contends photos are probative and not inflammatory, aiding jurors’ understanding. | Photos not inflammatory; probative and admissible. |
| Photo array identifications (Green and S. Anderson) | Kendricks claims the array was unduly suggestive and tainted subsequent identifications. | Commonwealth argues array not unduly suggestive and had independent basis for identifications. | Array not unduly suggestive; no reversible error in identification testimony. |
| In-court identifications of McMahon and V. Anderson | In-court identifications tainted by prior unlawful photo lineup. | Trial court properly allowed in-court identifications based on independent origin. | Independent basis supported; in-court identifications admissible. |
| Unreasonable belief self-defense jury instruction | Instruction on unreasonable belief self-defense should have been given. | Facts did not warrant the instruction under the standard jury instruction. | Trial court did not err in denying the instruction. |
| Sufficiency/weight of the evidence | Evidence failed to prove third-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt; conflicts show weight issue. | Evidence supports conviction; any conflicts were for jury to resolve. | Evidence sufficient; weight claim rejected; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519 (Pa. 2003) (two-step analysis for photos: inflammatory vs probative value)
- Commonwealth v. Begley, 780 A.2d 605 (Pa. 2001) (photographs may be probative even if body’s condition described by other testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 639 A.2d 789 (Pa. 1994) (relevance of photographs in homicide cases)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 860 A.2d 102 (Pa. Super. 2004) (totality of circumstances in suggestive identifications)
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 769 A.2d 1116 (Pa. 2001) (array fairness; not unduly suggestive if similar appearance)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 575 A.2d 921 (Pa. Super. 1990) (id array considerations; not required to be identical)
- Commonwealth v. Abdul-Salaam, 678 A.2d 342 (Pa. 1996) (independent origin for in-court identifications)
- Commonwealth v. James, 486 A.2d 376 (Pa. 1985) (factors for independent basis for identification)
- Commonwealth v. Kellam, 719 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. 1998) (definition of malice for third-degree murder)