Commonwealth v. Mickel
142 A.3d 870
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 29, 2014, a shooting occurred outside Juliet’s Gentlemen’s Club in Erie; eyewitness A’Jaza Mathis identified Jullian Mickel as the shooter.
- Police arrested Mickel in Dec. 2014; he was charged with aggravated assault, firearms offenses, possession of instruments of crime, and recklessly endangering another person.
- On Dec. 1, 2014, an Erie County Prison inmate (Barnett) placed a call from the jail; the call began with an automated notice that inmate calls may be recorded, and Barnett arranged a three-way call that included Mickel.
- On the recording Mickel describes prior altercations with the victim and admits obtaining a "jones" (street slang for a gun) and going to a strip club where he was jumped and then fired shots.
- Mickel moved in limine to exclude the recording under Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act, arguing he did not receive notice or consent to interception; the trial court denied the motion and the recording was admitted.
- A jury convicted Mickel; he was sentenced to 72–144 months imprisonment. He appealed, raising (1) the in limine ruling under the Wiretap Act and (2) sufficiency of the evidence (claiming the case rested on one unreliable eyewitness).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of recorded jail call under Pa. Wiretap Act | Commonwealth: recording fits the correctional-facility exception in 18 Pa.C.S. §5704(14); lawful and admissible | Mickel: he lacked notice/consent because he did not hear the recorded warning at the start of the call, so interception violated Wiretap Act | Court: affirmed admission — §5704(14) permits prison-recorded inmate calls when statutory conditions met; Mickel had no statutory entitlement to notice before speaking and did not show the facility violated §5704(14) |
| Sufficiency of the evidence supporting convictions | Commonwealth: combined eyewitness ID plus Mickel’s recorded statements permit conviction beyond reasonable doubt | Mickel: case depended on one unreliable eyewitness (Mathis), so evidence insufficient | Court: sufficiency challenge fails — credibility is for the jury; evidence (eyewitness testimony plus recording) viewed favorably to Commonwealth supports convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mendez, 74 A.3d 256 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Deck, 954 A.2d 603 (Pa. Super. 2008) (interpretation of Wiretap Act reviewed de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Spangler, 809 A.2d 234 (Pa. 2002) (Wiretap Act strictly construed; modeled on federal statute)
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 57 A.3d 74 (Pa. Super. 2012) (evidentiary error must be harmful to warrant reversal)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544 (Pa. Super. 2011) (sufficiency review standard)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 947 A.2d 800 (Pa. Super. 2008) (sufficiency principles)
- Commonwealth v. Palo, 24 A.3d 1050 (Pa. Super. 2011) (challenge to witness credibility is a weight, not sufficiency, claim)
- Commonwealth v. Clark, 311 A.2d 910 (Pa. 1973) (jury may believe all, part, or none of testimony)