Commonwealth v. Mitchell
135 A.3d 1097
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Pennsylvania Superior Court vacates Mitchell's sentence and remands for resentencing after a jury found him guilty of second-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery.
- The underlying crime involved the shooting and robbery of Boston Smithwick, a Vocelli's Pizza delivery driver in Swissvale/Wilkinsburg; Appellant was a juvenile at the time.
- A hacksaw blade with Mitchell's fingerprints was recovered; witnesses testified Mitchell and co-defendant Dempster confronted Smithwick with a shotgun.
- Witness Doreen Parker testified Mitchell, Dempster, and Irvin were on a porch near the crime scene shortly before the shooting; three-way pizza shop calls preceded the delivery.
- Mitchell challenged pre-trial suppression and Miranda waiver; convictions were entered on April 30, 2012 with a 2012 Miller v. Alabama-based sentencing framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for second-degree murder | Mitchell argues the Commonwealth failed to prove participation in a robbery or accomplice liability. | Commonwealth asserts Mitchell aided in the robbery and was present at the scene with a shared criminal purpose. | Evidence supports guilt for second-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy. |
| Admission of a deceased witness statement via excited utterance | Davidson's statements to Parker were inadmissible hearsay not within excited utterance. | Those statements were admissible excited utterances given the startling event and proximity in time to the shooting. | Statement admitted; excited utterance exception sustained; error harmless due to cumulative evidence. |
| Hearsay via Detective DeFelice recounting Parker's testimony | Reading Davidson's statements through Parker to Detective DeFelice was improper hearsay within hearsay. | It was a permissible inconsistent statement to refresh memory and corroborate Parker's testimony. | Harmless error; evidence was cumulative and did not prejudice the verdict. |
| Suppression and Miranda waiver for a juvenile | Waiver was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary due to lack of an interested adult free of conflict. | Waiver occurred with presence of mother and uncle; there was no conflict of interest and waiver was valid. | Waiver considered valid; suppression denied. |
| Conspiracy to commit robbery included in information and jury instruction | Conspiracy to commit robbery was not charged or properly referenced in the information. | Information expressly delineated conspiracy as part of count 3 tied to robbery; proper under record. | No error; conspiracy charge properly included in information. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment; requires age-related factors to be considered)
- Commonwealth v. Batts, 66 A.3d 286 (Pa. 2013) (parole eligibility considerations for juvenile homicide defendants after Miller)
- Commonwealth v. Lofton, 57 A.3d 1270 (Pa. Superior 2012) (limits/interpretation of Miller impact on juvenile sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732 (Pa. Superior 2012) (accomplice liability standards and withdrawal from conspiracy concepts)
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 80 A.3d 1186 (Pa. 2013) (conspiracy to commit third-degree murder permissible; distinguishes felony murder concepts)