Commonwealth v. Patterson
625 Pa. 104
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Maurice “Boo” Patterson was convicted by a jury of first‑degree murder, criminal conspiracy, and criminal solicitation for the March 30, 2007 shotgun killing of Eric Sawyer; co‑defendant Sean Durrant admitted shooting Sawyer but testified he did so at Patterson’s direction.
- The Commonwealth’s evidence included Durrant’s testimony, a March 25, 2007 handwritten prison letter from Patterson referencing a “hit,” recorded prison phone calls/visits in which Patterson discussed giving the “word” to "take care of" the victim, and witness testimony linking Patterson to the shotgun used in the killing.
- Durrant pleaded guilty to third‑degree murder and testified in exchange for a reduced charge and sentence; Patterson denied ordering the murder and claimed the communications concerned drugs.
- A jury found one statutory aggravator (a prior third‑degree murder conviction) outweighed mitigating evidence and returned a death sentence; Patterson’s concurrent conspiracy sentence was later corrected from illegal to 10–20 years.
- Patterson appealed on multiple evidentiary, constitutional, and procedural grounds; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (per curiam) affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Patterson’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for 1st‑degree murder as conspirator | Conviction unsupported; he did not personally shoot Sawyer | Letter, calls, Durrant’s testimony, weapon trace and inferences show conspiracy and intent | Evidence sufficient; conspiracy liability supports 1st‑degree murder conviction |
| Admission of redacted crime‑scene videotape | Tape was inflammatory and unnecessary because Durrant confessed | Video was not inflammatory, was relevant to corroborate ambush theory and scene layout | Tape admissible; not inflammatory and probative outweighs prejudice |
| Exclusion of evidence of Durrant’s alleged prison misconduct/prior bad acts | Such evidence would show bias/motive to lie | No convictions or disciplinary records found; Pa.R.E. 608(b)/609 bar specific‑acts impeachment without convictions | Exclusion proper; lack of foundation and rules bar admission |
| Denial of expert on eyewitness ID (Marion Diemer) | Expert needed to explain stress/drug influence on identification | Diemer voluntarily observed a gun sale; credibilty issues for jury on cross‑exam | Denial proper; expert would invade credibility function and Biggers inapplicable |
| Exclusion of witnesses to show alternate perpetrators’ motive (Duplanti, Derk) | Testimony would show others had motive to kill Sawyer | Proffer lacked evidence connecting those persons to the murder; some issues waived | Exclusion not an abuse: testimony irrelevant, proffers insufficient or waived |
| Admission of Burrage’s statement repeating Nicole Durrant (hearsay) | Double hearsay violated confrontation/hearsay rules | Portions at issue were not relied on in prosecutor’s argument; objection not preserved | No relief: claim waived and prosecutor relied on Durrant’s own testimony, not the hearsay line |
| Exclusion of Jesse James (jury‑list/jury tampering proffer) | Would show Durrant would do anything to cooperate and thus had motive to fabricate | Proffer not shown relevant; defense already elicited extensive impeachment of Durrant | Exclusion harmless/within discretion; impeachment of Durrant was cumulative |
| Cross‑examination about Tupac lyrics used to interpret letter phrase | Lyrics irrelevant and unduly prejudicial | Lyrics bore on meaning of the phrase Patterson claimed originated in song; credibility issue | Proper: limited cross permitted; relevance and weight for jury to decide |
| Denial of suppression of Patterson’s May 22, 2008 statement (Miranda waiver) | Waiver involuntary due to custody, numbers of officers, coercion | Officers credibly testified waiver was knowing, voluntary; interview was noncoercive | Waiver valid; suppression denial affirmed |
| Refusal to play videotape to refresh confidential informant’s recollection before jury | Needed to refresh recollection about another suspect | Playing before jury would be improper; Rule permits refresh outside jury or reading in limited cases | Court properly refused to play tape for jury; Rule 803.1 limits on‑record use apply |
| Failure to give "life means life" (Simmons) instruction at voir dire/guilt phases | Jurors form penalty views early; instruction should have been given earlier | Simmons applies only when future dangerousness is injected in penalty phase | No error: Simmons instruction given in penalty phase; not required earlier |
| Challenge to death penalty for accomplice/conspirator liability | Death unconstitutional when based on co‑conspirator liability | Issue waived and no developed argument or authority presented | Waived; not considered on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 860 A.2d 102 (Pa. 2004) (standard for sufficiency review in capital cases)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 985 A.2d 886 (Pa. 2009) (conspirator liability permits murder conviction regardless who fired fatal shot)
- Commonwealth v. Pruitt, 951 A.2d 307 (Pa. 2008) (two‑step test for inflammatory photographic evidence; Miranda waiver/suppression standards)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501 (Pa. 2005) (limits on other‑acts evidence and impeachment rules)
- Commonwealth v. Simmons, 662 A.2d 621 (Pa. 1995) (expert testimony standards; expert may not usurp credibility determinations)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (factors to evaluate eyewitness identification reliability)
- Commonwealth v. Malloy, 856 A.2d 767 (Pa. 2004) (graphic photos admissible to prove intent)
- Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 28 A.3d 868 (Pa. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119 (Pa. 2008) (Simmons instruction requirements)