Commonwealth v. Wade
33 A.3d 108
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- September 13–14, 2008: Wade steals Kevorkian’s car after threatening him, his friend, and his dog; victim identifies Wade within feet under street/vehicle lighting.
- Pursuing officers observe Wade driving the stolen car, a high-speed chase ensues with multiple police units.
- Wade collides with Officer Anabogu’s and other vehicles; Wade is arrested and taken to hospital.
- Kevorkian identifications Wade at hospital; suppression court denied suppression of identification as tainted but allowed in-court identification.
- Jury acquits on two aggravated assault counts but finds Wade guilty on robbery-threat of serious bodily injury, robbery of a motor vehicle, fleeing/eluding, terroristic threats, and two PIC and REAP counts; trial court imposes total 10–20 years imprisonment and 2 years probation.
- Appellant appeals challenging admissibility of identifications, PIC convictions, alleged double jeopardy/merger, and related sentencing issues; appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of identifications tainted by taint from arrest. | Wade | Wade | No reversible error; independent basis supports in-court ID. |
| Credit for PIC convictions where only one possessory act occurred. | Wade | Commonwealth | Waived per Andrews; not preserved for jury instruction. |
| Double jeopardy/merger of robbery offenses under §9765. | Wade | Commonwealth | Statute constitutional; offenses not same under Blockburger; no violation. |
| Whether the evaluation of offense gravity for PIC was correct. | Wade | Commonwealth | Moot; not sentenced for PIC. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Moye, 836 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. 2003) (one-on-one IDs and suggestiveness factors; totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Sample, 468 A.2d 799 (Pa. Super. 1983) (factors for reliability of identification and taint analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 417 Pa. Super. 165 (Pa. Super. 1992) (one-on-one identifications generally reliable; not inherently improper)
- Commonwealth v. Andrews, 564 Pa. 321 (Pa. 2001) (waiver rule for multiple PIC convictions when jury instruction required)
- Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 604 Pa. 34 (Pa. 2009) (merger of sentences under §9765; two-step test)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (elements test for double jeopardy; basis for merger statute)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 538 Pa. 574 (Pa. 1994) (greater/lesser-included offense analysis pre-merger statute)
- Commonwealth v. Tarver, 493 Pa. 320 (Pa. 1981) (foundation for merger doctrine and blockburger approach)
- Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374 (Pa. 1991) (state constitutional analysis requires independent evaluation; four-factor framework)
- Commonwealth v. Hogan, 482 Pa. 333 (Pa. 1978) (double jeopardy protections historically limited to capital cases; evolution to sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Bostic, 500 Pa. 345 (Pa. 1983) (federal/state double jeopardy alignment clarifications)