Commonwealth v. Stays
40 A.3d 160
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- June 22, 2008: shooting in West Philadelphia; two friends were present, one victim Nasir Farlow was shot twice.
- Detective found a .40 caliber shell casing in a sewer at the scene.
- Williams provided initial statements to police identifying the shooter as Wayne, with description and an address, and identified Stays in a photo array.
- A search of Williams' apartment, based on Williams' statements, yielded a Glock .40 handgun, marijuana, and money; the handgun matched the shell casing.
- At the preliminary hearing, Williams recanted his earlier identification and testimony; he later was murdered before trial.
- At trial, the court read Williams’ preliminary hearing testimony and read Williams’ police interview statement into the record; the jury convicted Stays of Aggravated Assault and Possession of Instruments of Crime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of former testimony and related statements | Stays argues Williams’ prior statements were inadmissible | Commonwealth contends Rule 804(b) permits former testimony since Williams was unavailable | Admissible under Rule 804(b)(1) and Rule 803.1 |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Aggravated Assault and PIC | Evidence fails to directly connect Stays to the shootings | Circumstantial evidence plus Williams’ identification prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Evidence sufficient; circumstantial proof plus Williams’ statements support conviction |
| Weight of the evidence | Verdict against weight of evidence due to Williams’ recantation | Weight-of-evidence standard deferential to jury; no shock to sense of justice | No abuse of discretion; verdict not against weight of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Colavita, 993 A.2d 874 (Pa. 2010) (preservation and admissibility standards for prior testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Rolan, 964 A.2d 398 (Pa.Super.2008) (preservation principles; appellate review limits)
- Commonwealth v. Bazemore, 614 A.2d 684 (Pa. 1992) (cross-examination opportunity and admissibility of prior statements)
- Commonwealth v. McCrae, 832 A.2d 1026 (Pa.2003) (weight vs. admissibility of inconsistent statements; jury weight decisions)
- Commonwealth v. Brady, 507 A.2d 66 (Pa.1986) (need for cross-examination to ensure reliability of out-of-court identifications)
- Commonwealth v. Floyd, 498 A.2d 816 (Pa.1985) (out-of-court identifications and reliability)
- Commonwealth v. Doa, 553 A.2d 416 (Pa.1989) (out-of-court statements and cross-examination)