Commonwealth v. Thomas
194 A.3d 159
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- On Dec. 30, 2015, Naeem Garfield was shot three times and died; Appellant Khalif Thomas was tried by jury for first‑degree murder, carrying a firearm without a license, and PIC.
- Multiple eyewitnesses (notably Karee Freeman and Eric McDowell) gave statements implicating Thomas; Freeman later wrote a recantation and testified inconsistently at trial.
- The Commonwealth introduced a videotaped interview of Freeman in which he described seeing Thomas shoot Garfield; Freeman later recanted in a written letter while housed in the same jail as Thomas.
- Police officers discovered Garfield at the scene and the medical examiner testified the victim was shot twice in the face and once in the neck; two shots were immediately fatal.
- Trial evidence included eyewitness testimony that McDowell saw Thomas aim a gun and heard shots while running, and testimony that Thomas admitted to McDowell he shot Garfield over dice winnings.
- Appellant was convicted and sentenced to mandatory life for murder; he appealed, raising evidentiary, Rule 106 (completeness), sufficiency, and weight challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Thomas's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of evidence that Thomas and Freeman were jailed together | Evidence was relevant to explain Freeman’s recantation and to show consciousness of guilt (intimidation) | Admission unfairly prejudiced jury by implying criminal background and propensity | Court affirmed admission; evidence relevant and limited by jury instruction, no abuse of discretion |
| Question whether prisoners "look favorably" on a cooperating inmate | Question probative to explain recantation risk and witness motivation | Question was unduly prejudicial and suggested propensity | Court upheld question as permissible to show witness fear/risk; instruction mitigated prejudice |
| Use of Pa.R.E. 106 to require reading additional portions of prior testimony (McDowell) | Rule 106 permits completeness; prosecutor entitled to require additional pages be read to avoid misleading impression | Thomas now argues no misleading impression existed (not preserved) | Appellant waived this objection by failing to timely and specifically object; court properly applied Rule 106 |
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence identifying Thomas as shooter | Eyewitness testimony, video interview, McDowell’s account and medical evidence suffice to link Thomas; credibility is for jury | Verdict against sufficiency/weight because witnesses were inconsistent and no conclusive ID | Sufficiency: evidence, including circumstantial and eyewitness accounts, was adequate. Weight: trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict did not shock the conscience |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Levanduski, 907 A.2d 3 (Pa. Super. 2006) (evidentiary relevance and probative value standard)
- Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 7 A.3d 830 (Pa. Super. 2010) (appellant must show evidentiary error was prejudicial)
- Commonwealth v. Yockey, 158 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2017) (prejudice standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007) (third‑party interference with witness admissible to show consciousness of guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 702 A.2d 540 (Pa. 1997) (threats/pressure on witnesses admissible to explain prior inconsistent statements)
- Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d 1025 (Pa. 2007) (preservation requirement for evidentiary objections)
- Commonwealth v. Boden, 159 A.2d 894 (Pa. 1960) (preservation rule for appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Estepp, 17 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. 2011) (sufficiency standard review)
- Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 A.3d 852 (Pa. Super. 2010) (application of sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Sanders, 627 A.2d 183 (Pa. Super. 1993) (circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Gainer, 7 A.3d 291 (Pa. Super. 2010) (conviction requires more than suspicion but not mathematical certainty)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 987 A.2d 699 (Pa. 2009) (intent to kill may be inferred from use of deadly weapon on vital part)
- Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (elements of murder)
- Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 946 A.2d 645 (Pa. 2008) (inference of intent from use of deadly weapon)
- Commonwealth v. Gardner, 416 A.2d 1007 (Pa. 1980) (malice inference from deadly weapon used on vital part)
- Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standards for reviewing sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (standard and deference for weight‑of‑evidence claims)