*1 Pennsylvania, Appellee, COMMONWEALTH of COLLINS, Appellant. Ronald Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued Jan. 1997.
Decided Nov. 1997. Reargument Denied March *3 Belli, Drost, for Collins. Philadelphia, John T. John R. Marshall, Dolgenos, Philadelphia, Thomas Catherine Commonwealth. Graci, Harrisburg, Atty. A. for Office of the Gen.
Robert ZAPPALA, CAPPY, FLAHERTY, C.J., Before CASTILLE, NEWMAN, JJ. NIGRO and
OPINION NEWMAN, Justice. jury Ronald Appellant
On October found murder,1 of two counts of first and one count guilty assault,2 aggravated possession each of of an instrument of crime,3 and recklessly endangering person.4 another These from aggravated convictions stem an on Lisa assault the murders of David Sisco and Dawn Anderson. After a penalty hearing, aggravating concluded *4 outweighed circumstances the mitigating circumstances death each of penalty degree set the at for count first murder.5 2502(a). § 1. 18 Pa.C.S. 2702(a)(1).
2. 18 Pa.C.S. § §
3. 18 907. Pa.C.S.
4. 18 Pa.C.S. §
5. The aggravating concerning found of David circumstances murder prosecution a a or Sisco were that Collins killed witness to murder felony purpose preventing the other that he committed for the of
50 Philadelphia the Court of Common Pleas of April
On (trial court) formally the sentence of death. County imposed prison ninety court also concurrent sentences of imposed The assault, months for hundred-eighty aggravated to one twelve twenty-four possession to months of an instrument of crime, twenty-four recklessly months for endan- and twelve motions, gering person. post-sentence another Collins filed appealed directly which the trial court denied. He then to this 722(4) § pursuant Court Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. 9711(h)(1). follow, § For the reasons that we affirm his of judgments convictions and sentence.
Sufficiency
the Evidence
penalty
imposed,
In all cases where the death
has been
this
an
performs
independent
sufficiency
Court
review of the
evidence
of whether
such re
regardless
appellant seeks
Zettlemoyer,
16,
3,
view.
26 n.
denied,
937,
(1982),
cert.
A.2d
942 n. 3
461 U.S.
103 S.Ct.
(1983).
reviewing
sufficiency
Viewed for first clearly support was sufficient Collins’ convictions in a degree murder. The events this case revolve around in second floor at 643 North 60th Street West apartment Philadelphia, drugs regularly where were sold and consumed. apartment managed drug Marc Sisco maintained the and brother, premises. trade that occurred on the Marc’s David Sisco, also in the a apartment. regular lived Collins was visitor to the and from that apartment often sold cocaine associates, location. Collins’ and Dawn Shawn Wilson Anderson, frequented also the apartment. in
Early morning of March Collins and Marc apartment began arguing. Sisco were Collins a pointed gun at Marc Sisco and shot him five times. When police apartment, they arrived at the found Marc Sisco lying on the bathroom floor. Medical him to personnel transported hospital where he from recovered his wounds. Police recov- one ered bullet from the bathroom floor apartment body hospital. two bullets from Marc Sisco’s at the Two bullets remain inside him. After shooting, David Sisco assisted the police investigation. their He discussed the police accompanied incident with a detective at the station and apartment, the detective to the where he described how the shooting occurred. days shooting, nearby
A few after the was at the Collins talking group residence Annie “Mom” Holloman to a people anyone spoke when he threatened to shoot who to the about the incident. He mentioned David police specifically potential target. Sisco as a confronted a woman named Lisa April
On her of porch on the of Holloman’s house and accused Tyler him. denied the accusation stealing drug money from that Dawn Anderson had stolen the and informed Collins *6 recently spending large had been amounts money. Anderson money, Despite Tyler’s professed was unusual. which innocence, a in gun fired a at her. The bullet tore hole Collins body. not strike her her coat but did 5, 1992, on approximately p.m. April At 8:00 Anderson was told Tyler. at Holloman’s house with Holloman and She corner”, “around the going Holloman that she was to work going to mean that Anderson was which understood apartment. at Marc Sisco’s Before assist with sales left, bring she told Holloman that she would some Anderson they “if don’t loll me.” She also told Holloman drugs back they they in the one time and said “they shot her elbow in understood going were to shoot her the head.” Holloman “they” reference to to mean Collins and Wilson. Anderson’s Collins evening, Gwendolyn accompanied Later that Oliver apartment. talking and to Marc Sisco’s After Shawn Wilson Oliver, drinking apartment, and beer for a short time go decided to to a hotel. Oliver left the Collins Wilson going call from a apartment telephone to make a booth before booth, phone approxi- to the hotel. at the Oliver heard While mately gun apartment. five shots come from the Collins then Oliver, a apartment, ran out of the called to and haüed cab. joined apartment exited the a few moments later and Wilson and Oliver in the cab. Collins cab, that he had riding
While Collins boasted someone, he “served” which Oliver understood to mean that responded had harmed someone. Wilson that Collins had deserved, they exchanged them and the two men a given what then asked if he had seen “the “high-five”. Collins Wilson on his shirt squirting blood out” and showed blood stains at stopped sleeve to The trio a delicatessen Wilson. of a man named beer and then went to the house purchase house, they Lonnie Boo. arrived at Lonnie Boo’s Collins When just told Lonnie Boo that “we had some drama”. Collins then gave gun safekeeping. drinking his to Lonnie Boo After cards, gave cab playing beer and Wilson Oliver fare, leaving, told her to wait a few minutes before and then left Lonnie Boo’s house. April arrived at Marc morning police
On apartment Sisco’s and discovered David Sisco unconscious and covered with blood on a bed. He had been shot approximately seven times and at a In hospital died few hours later. room, police another found Dawn Anderson unconscious and covered with blood on a bed. She had been shot once in the following day. head and died the Police recovered two bullets body, from David Sisco’s one bullet from Anderson’s head and several bullets from apartment. single
Ballistics evidence showed that a firearm had fired body, the two bullets recovered from David Sisco’s the bullet head, recovered from Anderson’s the bullets found *7 shot, apartment after David Sisco and Anderson were the bullet found in the bathroom after Marc Sisco was shot on March and at least one of the two bullets recovered body. from Marc Sisco’s The other bullet recovered from body may Marc Sisco’s have from gun, come the same but not positive possible identification was because the bullet became deformed after it was fired.
Based on foregoing, there was sufficient evidence for a beyond to conclude a that reasonable doubt Collins murdered David as a reprisal cooperating Sisco with the and that police Collins murdered Dawn Anderson because she Burgos. stole from allegedly money him. We now turn to the issues that Collins raises.
Severance pre-trial At a an oral motion hearing, Collins made to Sisco, charges relating shooting sever the to the of Marc aggravated Tyler, assault on Lisa and the murders of David and granted Sisco Dawn Anderson. The trial court the mo part. tion in It ruled that shooting Marc Sisco was a criminal separate episode individually. should be tried on and the Tyler court also ruled that the assault Lisa could tried of David and Dawn Anderson be murders Sisco Further, held that the evidence of the together. the court at the trial on the latter shooting Marc was admissible Sisco Sisco, of David a motive for the murder charges establish the same identity of the murderer because and establish Sisco, and Dawn used to Marc David Sisco gun was shoot. Anderson. denying in his argues that the trial court erred concerning charge aggravated
motion to sever the
assault
of first
charges
the shot fired at Lisa
from the
of David
and Dawn
concerning
shootings
murder
Sisco
The decision to sever offenses is
disagree.
Anderson. We
and
sound discretion of the trial court
will be
within the
for manifest
of that discretion. Com
only
reversed
a
abuse
Paolello,
47,
(1995);
Rule 1127. Joinder—Trial Informations
A. Standards
(1) indictments or informa- charged separate Offenses if: may together tions be tried (a) of each of the offenses would be admis- the evidence capable trial for the other and is separate sible *8 by jury danger so that there is no of separation confusion; or
(b) or charged the offenses are based on the same act transaction. of or Defendants
Rule Severance Offenses order trials of offenses or defen- may separate The court relief, other if it that provide appropriate appears dants or any party may prejudiced by be offenses or defendants being together. tried 1127;
Pa.R.Crim.P. Pa.R.Crim.P. 1128. Reading these two Rules this together, Court set following forth the for three-part deciding test a motion to sever:
Where the defendant moves to sever offenses not based on the same act or transaction that have been consolidated in a information, single indictment or opposes joinder or of informations, separate indictments or the court must there- fore determine: [1] whether the evidence of each of the offenses would be admissible in a separate trial other; [2] whether such evidence is capable separation by of confusion; and, so as to danger avoid if the answers to these inquiries are in the affirmative, [3] wheth- er the unduly defendant will be prejudiced by the consolida- tion of offenses. Lark, 491, 496-97
Commonwealth v. 543 A.2d test, Pursuant to the Lark a court must first deter ifmine evidence each of the offenses would be admissi in separate ble trial for the other. Evidence of crimes other than the in question one is not solely admissible show defendant’s bad propensity character or to commit crime. Newman, Commonwealth v. (1991); However, Lark. evidence of other crimes is admissible to (1) (2) (3) motive; intent; demonstrate absence of mistake or (4) accident; scheme, a common plan design or embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related each other (5) others; proof one tends to prove the or the identity person of the charged with the commission of the crime on trial. Id. Additionally, may evidence of other crimes be admitted where such part evidence is history of the case part and forms of the development natural of the facts. Lark. Here, the evidence of the offenses aggravated assault first murder would have been admissible in separate trials for each other. aggravated assault on Lisa would have been admissible in a separate trial for the first
56 because, immediately preced- motive murders to show
degree
assault,
that Dawn Anderson had
told Collins
the
ing
a motive
him,
Collins with
provided
from
which
money
stolen
would have
assault also
aggravated
Anderson. The
to murder
of the
development
natural
part
as
of the
been admissible
demonstrated Col-
and the murders
facts because the assault
the two incidents
his
trade and
protect
efforts to
lins’
v. LaCa-
See Commonwealth
only
days apart.
three
occurred
(evidence
(1995)
va,
160,
221
of assaults
666 A.2d
in
murder trial to show
separate
admissible
a
would have been
murdered
case where defendant
history of the
motive and
assaults).
scene of the
fleeing
officer
police
while
degree
murders
evidence of
first
Reciprocally,
aggravated
separate
in a
trial
have been admissible
would
or accident.
and absence of mistake
intent
prove
assault
usually
offense is
less
subsequent
of a
Although evidence
offense,
a
evidence
prior
than evidence of
probative of intent
at
show the defendant’s intent
offense can still
subsequent
of a
Ritter,
v.
419
Commonwealth
prior
time of the
offense.
denied,
656,
(1992),
442
appeal
615 A.2d
Pa.Super.
Green,
(1993);
Pa.Super.
Lastly, trial. Pa. of the offenses at consolidation by diced Lark, explained As we R.Crim.P. not speaks simply Rule 1128 is of which “prejudice”
[t]he *10 linked to the appellant in that will be the sense prejudice for that sort being prosecuted, he is crimes for which purpose the of all ostensibly is prejudice is, speaks of which Rule 1128 prejudice evidence. to rather, occur if the evidence tended that which would showing his to commit only by propensity appellant convict crimes, jury incapable separating the or because the was evidence. cumulating not avoid evidence or could Lark, Additionally, at at 543 A.2d a defendant to the connecting evidence admission of relevant trial, a criminal consequence a natural charged crimes is Here, by severance itself. Paolello. grounds and it is not to criminal offenses engaged separate a series Collins permitting no drug prejudice his trade. There was protect interrelated, distinct, yet to convict him based on the Accordingly, proper- the trial evidence of those crimes. court Lark; Paolello. motion to sever. ly denied Collins’ Hearsay by next that the trial court erred argues concern testify and Annie Holloman to permitting Lisa Dawn Anderson hearsay statements that ing inadmissible evening Spe on of the murders. presence made their objects emphasized portions to the cifically, Collins following exchanges: What, say to anything, if did Miss Anderson
[Prosecutor]: you? [Holloman], said, going Pll be back Pm
[Tyler]: She “Mom bring you something to work around the comer. Pll ”me. they back don’t kill if that conversa- present So who else was when [Prosecutor]: place? tion took Mom.
[Tyler]: yourself? And [Prosecutor]: Yes. [Tyler]: “Mom,” Annie Hollo- again, being And
[Prosecutor]: man?
[Tyler]: Holloman. Anderson you Did know where Miss worked? [Prosecutor]: [Tyler]: answering She worked around at Dave’s the door. door,” you say “answering When what do [Prosecutor]: mean? you drugs, For the let the sellers in—I mean
[Tyler]: in. buyers Holloman, Now, before Miss Anderson
[Prosecutor]: Miss what, your Edgewood left residence or home on Street if anything, say you going did she about where she was going and what she was do? *11 package drugs. She had a of
[Holloman]: you Hów do know that? [Prosecutor]: looking Because I was at them. [Holloman]: Well, they how did come out that you [Prosecutor]: looked at them? She took them out of her sock.
[Holloman]: sock, When she took them out of her what [Prosecutor]: happened? she had go
[Holloman]: She said to back around the comer they they because needed her and couldn’t do without her. I Then she asked me did want some I told drugs, of no—no, her she told me that she messed thewp pack if what was to her. going happen say going happen? [Prosecutor]: What did she was they She said shot her in elbow one time [Holloman]: said they they going and were to shoot her in the head. 18, added); Testimony, Notes of October 1994 at 85 (emphasis added). 19,1994 Testimony, Notes of October at 107 (emphasis contends, hand, The Commonwealth on the other that these pursuant statements were admissible to the state of mind exception against hearsay. to the rule agree. We
59
for the
offered
out-of-court statement
Hearsay is an
in the statement. Common
matter asserted
truth of the
(1992).
591,
The rule
Jones,
A.2d 931
Pa.
610
v.
530
wealth
from its assumed
evidence stems
admitting hearsay
against
the trier
declarant is not before
unreliability because
accuracy of the
challenged regarding
be
fact and cannot
Rush,
498, 505, 605
529 Pa.
v.
Commonwealth
statement.
defen
(1992).
violates the
Hearsay testimony also
792
A.2d
Id.
of confrontation.
right
dant’s
exceptions
Nonetheless,
are several recognized
there
Wright,
v.
rule. See Commonwealth
hearsay
to the
here,
(1974).
state of
at issue
480,
exception
Intention,
as a state
viewed
through
itself is
a fact to evince
way for such
commonest
because
It is therefore
or written declarations.
spoken
cases,
apart
intention
proving
many
impossibility,
declarations,
admitted. The
they
are
personal
from
then,
admission,
necessity, because of
is
of their
true basis
recognized....
rule is
hearsay
to the
exception
which an
Marshall,
the declar
Pa. at
On several
we have held that a deceased victim’s
evincing
out-of-court statements
an intent to meet the defen-
shortly
killing
dant
before the
were
pursuant
admissible
to the
state of mind
because such an
exception
provided
intent
circumstantial evidence that
the victim did meet with the
(victim
defendant.
told
Lowenberg
person
third
that she
concerning
wanted to see the defendant
a serious financial
(victim
matter); Riggins
party
told third
that she expected
(victim
home);
defendant
to visit her
Marshall
told third
party
going
that she was
to meet defendant and would disclose
man);
her affair with another
see also Commonwealth v.
(1995),
Sneeringer,
Pa.Super.
447
In the present expressed Anderson an intent to meet with shortly before her death and was concerned that Collins would harm her if she hindered his trade. These out-of-court appear statements to have been made a natural Further, during manner casual conversation. the statements permitted jury to conclude that Anderson met with Col- lins, giving him opportunity to kill Lowenberg; her. Riggins; They Marshall. supplied also with a motive Thus, for Collins to kill Anderson. Lowenberg; Marshall. the trial properly court admitted the statements under the exception state of mind to the hearsay rule.
Statutory Review claims, Having addressed each of Collins’ we now conduct by § the review mandated 42 Pa.C.S. Section
61 we of death unless this to affirm the sentence Court requires that: determine
(i) passion, preju- of product the of death was the sentence factor; any arbitrary dice or other (ii) one finding to at least support the fails the evidence (d); or in subsection specified circumstance aggravating (iii) to disproportionate is or the sentence of death excessive cases, the considering both penalty imposed similar the crime character and record of the and the circumstances the defendant. 9711(h)(3).6 §
42 Pa.C.S. sen- record indicates that Collins’ death review of the Our or other passion, any product prejudice was not the tence to Additionally, was sufficient evidence arbitrary factor. there regard- the found the circumstances support aggravating have con- Lastly, murders. we ing each the first sentencing compiled review of data an the independent ducted of Pennsylvania the Office Courts. Consid- by Administrative of the crime and the character ering both the circumstances defendant, that the sentence and record of the we find imposed to in similar penalty is not the disproportionate death cases.
Accordingly, and sentences of death.7 we affirm verdicts NIGRO, J., concurring opinion. files a NIGRO, Justice, concurring. to join Majority’s separately only
I decision. I write involving of Dawn clarify point hearsay statements Anderson. repealed Assembly proportionali
6. Effective June the General penalty by deleting ty all of subsection review from the death statute (h)(3)(iii) (h)(4) portion proportion and a of subsection that references (Act 28), ality § review. effective Act of June No. However, imposed immediately. because Collins' death sentence was act, proportionality of the he is entitled to before effective date Gribble, - Pa. -, review. Commonwealth v. A.2d 426 complete Prothonotary this We direct record of transmit l(i). § Pennsylvania. 42 case to the Governor of Pa.C.S. Annie Holloman and Lisa testify did not Anderson Appellant by mentioned in any name of the state- ments prior leaving she made Holloman’s residence. Both Holloman and Tyler indicated that Anderson used the word *14 N.T., “they.” 10/18/94, 85; 10/19/94, See at at 107. The statements in question were therefore vague rather and did not completely constitute reliable evidence of Appellant’s guilt. statements, vagueness however, of the simply goes to weight. their recognized Defense counsel this at trial and used it to his advantage by highlighting the indefinite nature of the cross-examination, statements. For on example, Lisa Tyler admitted that she did not know to whom Anderson was referring when she stated that “they” might kill her. See N.T., 10/18/94, Holloman, turn, at 96-98. testified on cross that she had understood Anderson to referring be to Appellant Shawn Wilson when she “they” stated that had and/or shot N.T., her in 10/19/94, the elbow. See at 109-10. this,
Given and the fact that the state-of-mind exception to case, the hearsay rule applies this it is clear that the trial court did not err in admitting the question. statements in Pennsylvania, Appellee,
COMMONWEALTH of GRIBBLE, Appellant. William R.
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court
Argued Jan. 1996.
Decided Nov. 1997. Reargument Denied March