Background

• Appellant Ronald M. Solomon was convicted at trial of aggravated assault and possessing an instrument of crime after a March 2009 shooting in a Philadelphia parking lot.
• The victim was shot in the back/shoulder area, suffered a gunshot wound and car crash, and required hospitalization and physical therapy with substantial medical bills.
• Solomon challenged two aspects on appeal: prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments and the restitution order directing payment to the victim rather than the hospital.
• The trial court and the Commonwealth argued the closing comments were fair response to the defense and demeanor and did not prejudice the jury.
• The restitution statute defines 'victim' expansively to include the victim and certain payors, and allows restitution to be allocated to the victim first, then to government programs or insurers.
• The Superior Court affirmed, holding the prosecutor's closing remarks were mere oratorical flair and did not undermine the verdict, and the court correctly ordered restitution to the victim.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Commonwealth v. Sampson, 900 A.2d 887 (Pa. Super. 2006) (contextual review of prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments)
• Commonwealth v. Linder, 425 A.2d 1126 (Pa. Super. 1981) (unavoidable effect standard for prosecutorial remarks)
• Commonwealth v. May, 587 Pa. 184, 898 A.2d 559 (2006) (scope of prosecutor argument and rebuttal allowed)
• Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 553 Pa. 485, 720 A.2d 79 (Pa. 1998) (prosecutor's closing remarks combined with defense strategy not grounds for new trial)
• Commonwealth v. Keenan, 853 A.2d 381 (Pa. Super. 2004) (restitution to victiｍs and providers; provider not direct victim unless loss caused by defendant)
• Commonwealth v. Brown, 603 Pa. 31, 981 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2009) (expansion of 'victim' to include entities reimbursing victims)