Commonwealth v. Tucker
143 A.3d 955
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- On Jan. 6, 2013, Daniel Tucker (Appellant) allegedly shot several men outside the Wheels of Soul motorcycle clubhouse; one victim (Nezzer Pankey) died. Tucker was tried and convicted by a jury of third-degree murder, two counts of attempted murder, aggravated assault, possession of an instrument of crime, and violations of the Uniform Firearms Act (VUFA). He was sentenced to an aggregate 35–70 years’ imprisonment.
- Multiple eyewitnesses (club members) identified Tucker from photo arrays and at trial; one victim (Turner) identified Tucker at trial but not at pretrial lineup. Poole (where Tucker was arrested) and other witnesses testified about seeing Tucker with a gun and his ejection from the club earlier that night.
- Tucker appealed, raising challenges to (1) the legality of his VUFA sentence, (2) denial of a mistrial after a prosecutor read a witness statement mentioning Tucker had "went to jail," (3) sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder convictions, (4) denial of a continuance to conduct DNA testing on a knife, and (5) admission of a prior consistent statement to bolster an eyewitness.
- The Commonwealth conceded the VUFA sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for a third-degree felony. The trial court and Superior Court addressed procedural and evidentiary objections raised at trial (timeliness of objections, Pa.R.Crim.P. 106/D 48-hour rule, and Pa.R.E. 613(c)(1) on prior consistent statements).
- The Superior Court affirmed all convictions but vacated the VUFA sentence as illegal and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illegality of VUFA sentence | VUFA sentence (5–10 yrs) exceeds statutory maximum for a 3rd‑degree felony | Commonwealth conceded sentence exceeded statutory maximum | Vacated VUFA sentence; remand for resentencing under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1103(3) |
| Mistrial for prosecutor’s reading that Appellant "went to jail" | Reference was prejudicial; mistrial required | Objection untimely (raised after witnesses finished); defense had prior notice and could have sought redaction | Denial of mistrial affirmed (issue waived for late objection; no manifest prejudice shown) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder counts | Commonwealth failed to prove specific intent to kill (esp. shooting of leg) | Evidence (multiple shots, use of deadly weapon, shots near head/neck) supports inference of intent to kill | Convictions for attempted murder upheld as supported by circumstantial evidence; inconsistent verdicts permissible if sufficiency exists |
| Denial of continuance to test knife DNA | Late disclosure (property receipt day before trial) prevented timely DNA testing; results could exculpate Tucker | Defense knew of the knife’s existence for ~1 year; motion violated Pa.R.Crim.P. 106(D) 48‑hour rule; knife was not central to facts | Denial of continuance affirmed (no abuse of discretion; opportunity to test existed earlier; knife relevance limited) |
| Admission of eyewitness’s prior statement (bolstering) | Admission improperly bolstered testimony | Defense opened theory of fabrication/conspiracy; prior consistent statement admissible to rehabilitate under Pa.R.E. 613(c)(1) | Admission affirmed as proper rehabilitation of witness credibility (statement predated alleged fabrication) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Leverette, 911 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for reviewing legality of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Cappellini, 690 A.2d 1220 (Pa. Super. 1997) (trial court jurisdiction to impose sentence within statutory range)
- Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa. Super. 2011) (sufficiency review standard)
- Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007) (use of deadly weapon on a vital part permits inference of specific intent to kill)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 35 A.3d 1206 (Pa. 2012) (inconsistent jury verdicts permitted where evidence suffices to support convictions)
- Allied Elec. Supply Co. v. Roberts, 797 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2002) (failure to make timely objection may waive subsequent motion for mistrial)