Commonwealth v. Orr
38 A.3d 868
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- February 8, 2008 robbery in South Philadelphia; two men with guns pursued Victim, patting him down and taking jacket, wallet, keys, etc. including exactly $26.
- Victim described taller robber (approx. 5'9"), red beard, light complexion, camouflage jacket and gray pants; shorter robber 5'3"–5'4" Hispanic.
- Appellant Orr was stopped within 3–5 blocks of the scene within ~25 minutes, wearing a gray/black camouflage hooded jacket and gray pants, with a red beard.
- Victim identified Appellant as the taller robber immediately after arrest; no in-court identification of face occurred; Victim testified later that identification was based on clothing and beard.
- Appellant was found in possession of $26; convictions entered at bench trial for robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, and possessing instruments of crime (PIC).
- Panel later reversed, then en banc, and majority affirmed the convictions based on circumstantial evidence linking Orr to the crimes, corroborating Victim's identification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identification to convict | Orr contends identification was based only on clothing/beard; Victim did not positively identify at trial. | Identification was inherently unreliable and insufficient to sustain conviction. | Sufficient evidence supports convictions. |
| Weight of the evidence | Victim testified he could not identify Orr; the identification was weak. | Trial court abused discretion by not granting a new trial due to weight of the evidence. | Convictions not against the weight of the evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa. Super. 2011) (reaffirming sufficiency standard; circumstantial evidence can sustain)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 546 Pa. 515, 686 A.2d 1279 (Pa. 1996) (circumstantial evidence may establish identity)
- Commonwealth v. Small, 559 Pa. 423, 741 A.2d 666 (Pa. 1999) (weight-of-the-evidence standard; deference to finder of fact)
- Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 832 A.2d 403 (Pa. 2003) (weight-of-evidence review; abides discretion of trial court)
- Commonwealth v. Minnis, 312 Pa. Super. 53, 458 A.2d 231 (Pa. Super. 1983) (identification can be circumstantial corroboration)
- Commonwealth v. Grahame, 333 Pa. Super. 224, 482 A.2d 255 (Pa. Super. 1984) (store clerk identification may be too tenuous to sustain)
- Commonwealth v. Crews, 436 Pa. 346, 260 A.2d 771 (Pa. 1970) (early discussion of identification sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Cain, 906 A.2d 1242 (Pa. Super. 2006) (uncertainty in eyewitness identification is a weight issue, not sufficiency)