Commonwealth v. Kennedy
151 A.3d 1117
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- On July 9, 2013 John Anderson was shot and killed in the foyer of his apartment; eyewitnesses Hines and Brooks‑Mapp identified Unique S. Kennedy as the shooter.
- Earlier the same day co‑defendant Harris had threatened Anderson and later went with Kennedy toward Anderson’s building.
- Police crime‑scene investigator Officer Jacqueline Davis placed rods in bullet holes in the apartment door and opined the door was slightly ajar when shots were fired.
- At trial Kennedy testified to self‑defense; he sought to call character witnesses to attest to his truthfulness, and moved to exclude Davis’s lay opinion on trajectory.
- The trial court admitted Davis’s lay testimony under Pa. R. Evid. 701, excluded Kennedy’s proffered honesty witnesses under Pa. R. Evid. 404(a)(2)(A)/608(a), and a jury convicted Kennedy of first‑degree murder and related offenses; he was sentenced to life without parole.
- On appeal the Superior Court affirmed, addressing (1) sufficiency as to malice/intent, (2) admissibility of lay trajectory testimony, (3) exclusion of photographs (waived), (4) exclusion of character‑for‑truthfulness testimony, and (5) weight claim (waived).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Kennedy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for malice/specific intent | Evidence (multiple shots, eyewitness ID, surrounding circumstances) proved malice and intent | Argued Commonwealth failed to prove malice/intent and self‑defense was not rebutted | Affirmed — multiple gunshots and circumstantial evidence supported inference of malice and intent |
| Admissibility of crime‑scene investigator’s lay opinion on bullet trajectory/door position | Testimony was rationally based on perception, helpful to jury, and not specialized; admissible under Pa. R. Evid. 701 | Argued trajectory/scene reconstruction required expert testimony under Pa. R. Evid. 702 | Affirmed — lay opinion admissible; placing rods in holes is an observation a layperson could make (701 applies) |
| Exclusion of photographs of surrounding buildings | — | Kennedy argued exclusion prejudiced defense; claimed relevance to door/scene | Waived — photos not included in certified record, so appellate review precluded |
| Exclusion of character‑for‑truthfulness witnesses | 608(a) allows truthful‑character evidence only after attack on general reputation; 404(a)(2)(A) not applicable here | Kennedy relied on 404(a)(2)(A) (pertinent trait) arguing credibility of only few witnesses made honesty pertinent | Affirmed — Kennedy not attacked on general truthfulness so 608(a) inapplicable; honesty not a pertinent trait to murder under 404(a)(2)(A) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2011) (malice may be inferred from multiple gunshot wounds)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 865 A.2d 761 (Pa. 2004) (specific intent to kill may be inferred from multiple shots)
- Commonwealth v. Duffey, 548 A.2d 1178 (Pa. 1988) (lay testimony on blood‑spatter exceeded Rule 701 and required expert proof under Rule 702)
- Pierson v. United States, 503 F.2d 173 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (a lay person can, under certain circumstances, opine on bullet direction from a hole)
- Colorado v. Caldwell, 43 P.3d 663 (Colo. App. 2001) (crime‑scene technician’s trajectory testimony admissible under Rule 701)
- Prince v. State, 85 A.3d 334 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014) (trajectory rods placement and testimony by officer did not require expert qualification)
- Commonwealth v. Puksar, 951 A.2d 267 (Pa. 2008) (reputation for honesty is generally irrelevant in murder prosecutions)