Commonwealth v. Patterson
180 A.3d 1217
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- Defendant Christopher Patterson shot and killed Kevin Croney in the parking lot of a tattoo shop after an argument over payment for laser tattoo removal; Patterson claimed self-defense.
- Witness Mark Patrick testified Patterson pinned and punched Croney, was shoved away, then ran toward Croney and shot him at point-blank range; Patrick did not see Croney point a gun.
- Patterson was arrested and tried; the jury viewed the crime scene while Patterson was transported in shackles and handcuffs.
- Jury convicted Patterson of third-degree murder; he was sentenced to 16–32 years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution.
- On appeal Patterson raised multiple claims: shackling during the view, jury instructions about custody, timing and procedure of the view, sufficiency/self-defense, admission of recorded jail calls, denial of transcript review during deliberations, and sentencing challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Patterson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Shackling at jury view | Court security and escape risk justified restraints outside courtroom | Shackling during scene view prejudiced jury and deprived fair trial; court failed to consider alternatives | Affirmed: trial court acted within discretion; outside-court escape risk justified restraints |
| 2) Curative instruction re: custody and restraints | Instruction that custody/shackles are required by law cures prejudice | Instruction still conveyed guilt/seriousness and stripped presumption of innocence | Affirmed: jury presumed to follow curative instruction; no prejudice shown |
| 3) Allowing testimony at the view before presentation of other evidence | Rule 643 allows judge, counsel, defendant to be present and testimony during view | Relied on Darcy — jury view should be isolated from trial testimony | Affirmed: adoption of Rule 643 supersedes Darcy; view was not a suspension of trial |
| 4) Sufficiency of evidence for third-degree murder | Evidence (point-blank shot to head) meets malice/recklessness element | Claimed insufficiency and asserted self-defense | Affirmed conviction: evidence sufficient to prove third-degree murder |
| 5) Self-defense (Commonwealth must disprove) | Witness testimony showed Patterson was aggressor and provoked incident | Patterson claimed he shot because Croney had a gun | Affirmed: Commonwealth disproved self-defense (provocation/aggresor element) |
| 6) Admission of recorded jail phone calls | County jail recordings are exempt from Wiretap Act court-order requirement | Recordings obtained without court order violated Wiretap Act | Affirmed admission: 18 Pa.C.S. §5704(14) permits county facility recordings for prosecutions |
| 7) Denial of jury review of transcript of Patterson’s testimony during deliberations | Reading portions can refresh recollection but is discretionary | Denial prejudiced deliberations; transcript requested | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; concerns about loss of testimonial demeanor and delay justified denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1976) (defendant cannot be compelled to appear in identifiable prison clothing)
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1970) (restraints in courtroom affect dignity and juror perceptions)
- Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (U.S. 1986) (presence of visible security may not automatically deny fair trial)
- Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2005) (courts may not routinely shackle defendants without particularized justification)
- Commonwealth v. Jasper, 610 A.2d 949 (Pa. 1992) (right to appear free from restraints is not absolute)
- Commonwealth v. Darcy, 66 A.2d 663 (Pa. 1949) (historical rule that testimony during a view should be avoided)
- People v. Hardy, 825 P.2d 781 (Cal. 1992) (upholding shackling for jury view where escape risk greater outside courtroom)
- Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 55 A.3d 1108 (Pa. 2012) (Commonwealth bears burden to disprove self-defense)