212 A.3d 1094
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- On Sept. 6, 2011, two men (Appellant Nalik S. Scott and co-defendant Ibrahim Muhammed) allegedly robbed Lorena’s Grocery in Philadelphia; three family members (Porfirio Nunez, Juana Nunez, Lina Sanchez) were fatally shot and another victim injured. Police recovered multiple 9mm casings and bullets.
- Muhammed was arrested months later, gave inculpatory statements to police, and identified Appellant as his co-conspirator; store employees Jessica and Laura Nunez identified Appellant and Muhammed from photo arrays.
- Appellant and Muhammed were tried together; a jury convicted Appellant of three counts of first-degree murder and related offenses. After an irresolute penalty-phase, the trial court imposed three consecutive life sentences plus 50–100 years.
- Appellant raised twelve trial errors on appeal: voir dire limitations regarding anti-Muslim bias, excusal of death‑penalty–scruple jurors, Batson challenge to peremptory strikes, alleged prosecutorial misconduct and improper questioning/impeachment, admission of evidence about witness intimidation, expert testimony disputes (video quality and medical expert cross), and cumulative error.
- The Superior Court reviewed claims for waiver, relevance, discretion in evidentiary rulings, Batson standards, and harmless‑error; it affirmed the judgment of sentence in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellant) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire on anti‑Muslim bias | Scott argued the court prevented individual questioning of venirepersons about bias against Muslims and that the detective’s comment made individualized inquiry necessary | Court asked a single group question about fairness toward African‑American Muslims; defense counsel accepted the court’s method at the time | Waived for lack of objection; on the merits single group question was adequate (Richardson) |
| Dismissal of jurors with death‑penalty scruples | Counsel should have been allowed to rehabilitate jurors who said beliefs would prevent imposing death or life without parole | Trial court followed Keaton authority permitting dismissal where jurors say beliefs would prevent penalty | No error; dismissal appropriate under Keaton |
| Batson challenge to peremptory strikes | Four African‑American venirepersons were struck early; strikes were pretextual | Commonwealth offered race‑neutral reasons (residency, prison job duties, staring, youth/immaturity); trial court found explanations credible | No Batson violation; trial court’s credibility findings not clearly erroneous |
| Prosecutor’s “evil” remark and appeals to emotion/race | Opening and closing statements (e.g., calling defendants “evil,” remarks about experts’ pay) inflamed jury and prejudiced defendants | Defense did not timely object to some remarks; court gave curative instruction about emotion and impartiality; some comments were within permissible bounds or supported by cross‑examination | Waived where no objection; where preserved, remarks were harmless or within advocacy limits |
| Leading questions and limits on cross‑examination | Prosecutor led witnesses and court sustained objections limiting defense cross on witnesses’ memory/perception | Court sustained relevancy objections as remote; defense often failed to cite authority or preserved objection | Issues largely waived or without merit; court did not abuse discretion |
| Admission of evidence re: witness intimidation (Facebook photos) | Introducing photos and questions about intimidation lacked connection to defendants and unfairly prejudiced jury | Evidence was admissible to explain witnesses’ prior inconsistent statements; court gave limiting instructions that defendants were not shown to be responsible | Properly admitted for limited purpose; no error |
| Detective expert on video quality (Rule 573) | Expert testimony on video quality should have been precluded for untimely report and prejudice | Court limited Detective Dunlap to technical testimony and defense counsel withdrew objection on record | Waived; in any event the testimony was constrained and permitted |
| Use of prior high‑profile case and expert impeachment | Prosecutor revealed the Colorado theater case and displayed a video still despite pretrial in limine limiting specificity | Trial court sustained objections, admonished prosecutor, excluded video unless later shown necessary; defense did not move for mistrial | Waived or harmless; trial court’s handling appropriate and no mistrial warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (separate notices of appeal required when multiple dockets are involved)
- Commonwealth v. Richardson, 473 A.2d 1361 (Pa. 1984) (single voir dire question may suffice where race/religion not otherwise a trial focus)
- Commonwealth v. Keaton, 45 A.3d 1050 (Pa. 2012) (trial court may excuse jurors who state beliefs prevent imposition of death penalty)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (prohibits race‑based peremptory strikes; three‑step burden shifting analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007) (evidence of interference or threats to witnesses admissible to show consciousness of guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Karenbauer, 715 A.2d 1086 (Pa. 1998) (voir dire scope rests within trial court discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Towles, 106 A.3d 591 (Pa. 2014) (Batson review requires consideration of totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Paddy, 800 A.2d 294 (Pa. 2002) (Commonwealth may comment on lack of evidence promised by defense)