In the Interest of: J.G., a Minor
145 A.3d 1179
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- On Dec. 10, 2014, a complainant was robbed by five young Black males; one wore a red hooded sweatshirt. Complainant called police within minutes.
- Officers received a flash description and two blocks from the crime located a group matching that description; one in a red hoodie (J.J.) and others in dark hoodies, including J.G. (Juvenile).
- As officers approached, some in the group fled; Juvenile ran, hid under a car, and was later apprehended after a brief chase.
- The complainant was transported to the scene and made one-on-one, on-the-scene identifications of J.J. (red hoodie) and Juvenile (dark hoodie) within minutes of the robbery.
- Juvenile was adjudicated delinquent of robbery, conspiracy, theft, and simple assault; he did not file a post-dispositional motion and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth/Complainant) | Defendant's Argument (Juvenile) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop/detention was lawful (unlawful seizure) | Police had reasonable suspicion based on prompt victim flash, matching description, proximity, and evasive behavior | Stop unlawful: flash lacked detailed descriptors (height/weight/direction) and Juvenile fled from a different location | Stop lawful: officers had reasonable suspicion; proximity, clothing match, timing, and flight supported investigatory detention |
| Whether on-scene, one-on-one identification was unduly suggestive | Identification was prompt, near-in-time, witness saw faces and clothing, no corrupting factors | Identification was suggestive because Juvenile was in police presence and ID relied on clothing not face | Identification admissible: prompt on-scene confrontation does not, by itself, violate due process; no special unfairness shown |
| Whether the adjudication was against the weight of the evidence | Identification was reliable and timely; credibility/weight for trial court to assess | Verdict shocks justice because complainant later misidentified jacket colors and relied on clothing | Remand required: juvenile failed to file post-dispositional motion, so remand for opportunity to file nunc pro tunc under In re J.B.; remand for juvenile to present weight claim |
| Whether sufficiency of the evidence preserved / supports adjudication | Evidence (identification, circumstantial facts) sufficient to prove elements beyond reasonable doubt | Identification unreliable and contradictory, so evidence insufficient | Sufficiency claim waived for lack of specificity in Pa.R.A.P.1925(b); otherwise court concluded record supports adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fulmore, 25 A.3d 340 (Pa. Super. 2011) (totality of circumstances governs admissibility of out-of-court identification)
- In re D.M., 727 A.2d 556 (Pa. 1999) (victim-provided flash and evasive behavior can supply reasonable suspicion to detain)
- Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 74 A.3d 228 (Pa. Super. 2013) (on-scene one-on-one identifications are not per se unduly suggestive)
- In re J.B., 106 A.3d 76 (Pa. 2014) (juvenile weight-of-the-evidence claims may be preserved when raised in Rule 1925(b) and addressed by the juvenile court)
- Commonwealth v. Ellis, 662 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 1995) (officers may briefly detain suspects to allow on-scene identification)
- Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Rule 1925(b) sufficiency statements must specify which elements are challenged)