Commonwealth v. Rashid
160 A.3d 838
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- In May and June 1999 two separate shootings left Harvey Meyers and Warner Freeman dead; Freeman was killed in June 1999 after witnesses placed Appellant Tariq Rashid at the scene firing multiple shots.
- Ballistics showed the fresh wounds were from .38-caliber bullets (same gun); no .25-caliber weapon from witnesses was introduced into evidence.
- Case cold for ~13 years; several witnesses later (2014–2015) identified Rashid as the shooter; Rashid arrested December 2, 2014 and tried December 2015.
- Rashid convicted by jury of first‑degree murder, possession of an instrument of crime, and carrying a firearm without a license; sentenced to life.
- On appeal Rashid raised five evidentiary/error claims: (1) exclusion of evidence suggesting an alternative motive (the so‑called "Gaffney Organization"), (2) prohibition on impeachment by asserting a witness’s Fifth Amendment privilege, (3) exclusion of impeachment from a witness’s prior sworn statements, (4) admission of testimony that Rashid carried a .25 when ballistics indicated otherwise, and (5) denial of a mistrial for alleged prosecutorial misconduct toward character witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth / Trial Court Response | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excluding evidence about the "Gaffney Organization" and alternative perpetrator theory | Rashid: evidence of Connor/Gaffney drug ties showed motive for someone else to kill Freeman and should be admissible | Trial court: much of the Gaffney‑organization material was irrelevant or inadmissible hearsay; defense was allowed limited cross‑examination and argued theory at closing | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; defense had opportunity to probe and argue alternative theory but could not introduce irrelevant/hearsay evidence |
| Preclusion of cross‑examination because witness invoked Fifth Amendment | Rashid: statute of limitations for drug offenses expired so Connor could not assert Fifth Amendment privilege and should have to answer | Trial court: defense questions risked eliciting incriminating responses tied to motive for murder; Fifth Amendment protection extends to statements that link to other crimes | Affirmed — privilege properly recognized; trial court did not err |
| Impeachment of Cummings with prior sentencing/hearing testimony | Rashid: Cummings previously denied guilt; that prior inconsistent sworn statement should be used to impeach | Trial court: prior statements were collateral or not probative of credibility beyond other impeachment measures; defense already impeached extensively | Affirmed — exclusion harmless/cumulative; no abuse of discretion |
| Testimony that Appellant carried a .25‑caliber gun when ballistics showed .38/.380 or 9mm | Rashid: testimony portraying him as an armed person was highly prejudicial and inconsistent with ballistics | Trial court/Commonwealth: witness actually testified he did not recall saying that; ballistics did not show a .25 and no .25 gun was introduced | Affirmed — testimony not harmful; memory lapse favored defendant and not prejudicial |
| Denial of mistrial for prosecutor’s cross‑examination of character witnesses about drug dealing and demonstrative behavior | Rashid: prosecutor’s questions and gestures injected prior bad acts and improvised ‘‘rap‑sheet’’ theatrics, violating pretrial order and requiring mistrial | Trial court: defense opened door by putting peaceful character at issue; limited, probative cross‑examination about standards for peacefulness was permissible; gestures were proper advocacy and jury instruction sufficed | Affirmed — no prosecutorial misconduct amounting to deprivation of fair trial; mistrial not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and weighing probative value v. prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Ward, 605 A.2d 796 (Pa. 1992) (admission of testimony supporting alternative perpetrator/motive theory can be required where it rebuts Commonwealth’s evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175 (Pa. Super. 2005) (trial court may preclude cross‑examination based on inadmissible evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Treat, 848 A.2d 147 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Fifth Amendment privilege extends to statements that are links in chain to other crimes)
- Commonwealth v. Hensley, 441 A.2d 431 (Pa. Super. 1982) (prior inconsistent statements may be used to impeach, but scope of admissibility depends on relation to the case)
- Commonwealth v. Kouma, 53 A.3d 760 (Pa. Super. 2012) (character witness cross‑examination may probe specific acts to test witness’s standard for reputation)