Commonwealth v. Towles, J., Aplt.
106 A.3d 591
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Appellant Jakeem Towles and a companion went to a venue after drinking and using marijuana; Towles retrieved a handgun he had hidden earlier and, after an on-stage altercation, returned behind the venue and fired three shots, killing Cornell Stewart and injuring John Wright.
- Towles was tried, convicted of first-degree murder and attempted homicide, and sentenced to death after the jury found the aggravator that his conduct created a grave risk of death to another person.
- Defense asserted heat-of-passion and diminished-capacity/voluntary-intoxication defenses; offered a toxicologist report containing Towles’s detailed, self-serving statements about his drug/alcohol use and alleged concussion.
- Pretrial and trial disputes included (1) striking a veniremember for cause, (2) Batson challenges to the Commonwealth’s peremptory strikes, (3) admission of prior acts/familiarity with the murder weapon and a preexisting facial injury, (4) exclusion of the expert’s report and limitation of his testimony to hypotheticals, (5) jury instructions on premeditation/deliberation, and (6) an un-checked box on the penalty-phase verdict slip.
- The trial court denied suppression and other motions; this Court reviewed sufficiency, trial rulings, Batson claims, evidentiary rulings, jury charge, and the penalty-phase verdict form and affirmed judgment and death sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Towles) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for 1st‑degree murder | Evidence (retrieval of gun, deliberate return, three shots toward two men, death) supports specific intent | Towles argued lack of specific intent due to intoxication/heat of passion | Evidence sufficient; jury could infer malice and specific intent from conduct and weapon use |
| Striking Juror 32 for cause | Trial court acted within discretion to remove juror whose views would impair oath performance | Towles said juror only voiced general preference for life and could follow law; should have required peremptory challenge | Court upheld removal: voir dire showed juror would likely vote life regardless; strike for cause proper |
| Batson challenges to peremptory strikes | Prosecutor offered race/gender-neutral reasons for strikes; trial court assessed credibility and found no purposeful discrimination | Towles argued strikes targeted minority females and reasons were pretextual | Court upheld trial court; totality and demeanor support no Batson violation; some gender claims waived when not timely asserted |
| Admission of prior acts re: familiarity with handgun | Evidence of prior requests/use of Hunter’s gun was relevant to intent, access, and absence of mistake; admissible under Pa.R.E.404(b) and res gestae | Towles argued prior uses were unfairly prejudicial and constituted impermissible character evidence | Admitted: probative on intent/knowledge and to complete the narrative; prejudice did not outweigh probative value |
| Evidence of preexisting facial injury | Commonwealth used evidence to rebut Towles’ claim that Wright inflicted the injury moments before shooting | Towles argued irrelevant and prejudicial because it suggested recent fighting/retaliatory motive | Admissible to rebut heat‑of‑passion claim and not unduly prejudicial; harmless if error |
| Expert report & testimony (Pa.R.E.703) | Expert could testify via hypotheticals; prosecutor argued report contained defendant’s hearsay and experts wouldn’t reasonably rely on self-serving statements absent testing | Towles argued the expert relied on his detailed statements; exclusion prevented jury from hearing full opinion on intoxication/concussion | Court permitted expert opinion but excluded the report and direct repetition of defendant’s out-of-court statements; limiting to hypotheticals was proper and not prejudicial |
| Jury instruction on premeditation vs. deliberation | Commonwealth relied on standard instructions; court rejected defendant’s longer definitions | Towles argued suggested instructions insufficiently defined deliberation and premeditation | Instructions as a whole correctly stated law; no error in declining defense wording |
| Penalty-phase verdict form oversight (unchecked box) | Commonwealth: form was explanatory; jurors wrote the aggravator and mitigators and polling confirmed unanimous weighing | Towles argued the failure to check the specific statutory box invalidated death verdict | Court held the declination to check was clerical; the slip plus individual juror polling show unanimous finding that aggravator outweighed mitigators; sentence valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 987 A.2d 699 (Pa. 2009) (death-penalty sufficiency review; aggravator analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403 (Pa. 2003) (standards for death-sentence review)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (prohibition on race-based peremptory strikes)
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1985) (standard for excluding jurors for views on capital punishment)
- Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Dillon, 925 A.2d 131 (Pa. 2007) (res gestae / completing the story doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Galvin, 985 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2009) (trial court discretion on expert testimony admissibility)