Commonwealth v. Richard
150 A.3d 504
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Ryan Richard, serving a sentence for a 1989 guilty plea to third-degree murder, was arrested on Dec. 13, 2012 after his projected release when letters (including a “hit list”) were discovered that threatened persons involved in his murder prosecution. He was later charged additionally after an April 4, 2013 unmonitored prison phone call to his daughter in which he threatened his brother and others.
- Three dockets were related to (1) the letters (CP-14-CR-0016-2013), (2) two terroristic threats from April 10, 2013 (CP-14-CR-0708-2013), and (3) one count of intimidation of witnesses/victims based on the April 4 phone call (CP-13-CR-0711-2013).
- At a consolidated jury trial (Nov. 13, 2014) Richard was acquitted of the seven terroristic-threat counts tied to the letters, convicted on two terroristic-threat counts (docket 0708) and on the intimidation-of-witnesses count (docket 0711); one terroristic-threat count was granted acquittal at trial.
- The trial court denied multiple pretrial motions (including a motion to sever) and admitted testimony and evidence about Richard’s 1989 murder conviction as prior-bad-acts evidence under Pa.R.E. 404(b) / res gestae. Richard objected to admission of murder details but did not lodge contemporaneous objections to several statements at trial.
- Posttrial, Richard moved for judgment of acquittal and for modification of sentence (seeking additional credit for time served); the motions court denied relief. He appealed, raising severance, Rule 404(b) admissibility of the 1989 murder evidence, insufficiency/weight of the evidence, judgment of acquittal as to the letters, and credit-for-time-served issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Richard) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to sever joinders of the three dockets | Joinder prejudiced trial because evidence of the gruesome 1989 murder and letters would inflame the jury and was not part of the same act or transaction as the phone-call offenses | Offenses were "inextricably intertwined"; evidence of each would be admissible in separate trials and formed part of a continuous intimidation scheme; joinder served judicial economy | Trial court did not abuse discretion: joinder appropriate because events formed a chain/ongoing act; jury demonstrated ability to separate incidents (acquittal on letters counts) |
| Admissibility of 1989 murder evidence under Pa.R.E. 404(b) / res gestae | Prior murder conviction and murder details were overly prejudicial and irrelevant to the charged threats; probative value did not outweigh prejudice | Prior murder and the victims’ involvement in that prosecution explained motive, intent, and the context of the threats; evidence was part of the natural development of the case | No abuse of discretion. Prior acts were relevant to motive/intent and formed the history of the case; many objections were waived for lack of contemporaneous objection |
| Sufficiency / motion for judgment of acquittal as to the letters and related statute-of-limitations claim | Commonwealth failed to prove letters were written/mailed within the five-year statute of limitations; broad date range in information prevented defense | Circumstantial evidence supported timely creation/discovery within the limitations period; jury is factfinder on when elements occurred | Trial court properly denied judgment of acquittal re: the “hit list” (sufficient circumstantial evidence); court granted acquittal on one other letter lacking timely evidence; no reversible error |
| Sufficiency and weight of the evidence for convictions from April 4 call (terroristic threats; intimidation) | Testimony was insufficient or unreliable; alleged lack of proof that Richard intended his daughter to relay call or knew it would be relayed; verdict against the weight of evidence | Commonwealth presented testimony from the daughter, brother, and counselor corroborating threatening content and fear; prior letters provided context supporting intent and intimidation | Convictions supported. Viewing evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth, evidence was sufficient and trial court did not abuse discretion on weight claim |
| Credit for time served prior to sentencing | Because charges were "inextricably intertwined," all pretrial custody (from Dec. 13, 2012) should be credited to the sentences imposed | Statute and precedent limit credit to custody for the offense on which sentence is imposed; Richard’s convictions stemmed from conduct culminating on April 10, 2013 | No relief. Court correctly awarded credit only for time in custody on the offenses of conviction (credit beginning April 10, 2013) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 703 A.2d 418 (Pa. 1997) (standards for severance and joinder analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Janda, 14 A.3d 147 (Pa. Super. 2011) (admissibility of other-crimes evidence and permissible purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Morris, 425 A.2d 715 (Pa. 1981) (limits on use of other-crimes evidence and permissible purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 989 A.2d 883 (Pa. 2010) (joinder permissible where charges flow from same events and form one story)
- Commonwealth v. Dozzo, 991 A.2d 898 (Pa. Super. 2010) (prejudice standard under Pa.R.Crim.P. 583 and 404(b) analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (framework for weight-of-the-evidence review)