Com. v. Hall

• Decision Date: 17 September 1997
• Citation: 549 Pa. 269,701 A.2d 190
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Darrick HALL, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 190

701 A.2d 190

549 Pa. 269

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Darrick HALL, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Oct. 15, 1996.

Decided Sept. 17, 1997.

Vincent P. DiFabio, Paoli, for D. Hall.

Nicholas J. Casenta, Jr., Robert A. Graci, Harrisburg, for Commonwealth.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO and NEWMAN, JJ.

OPINION

CASTILLE, Justice.

Following a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of first degree murder, ¹ carrying a firearm without a license, ² robbery, ³ conspiracy to commit robbery, ⁴ and recklessly endangering another person ⁵ in connection with the December 18, 1993 death of Donald Johnson. The jury acquitted appellant of conspiracy to commit murder. Following the penalty hearing, the jury found that two aggravating circumstance ⁶ outweighed the one mitigating circumstance, ⁷ and set the penalty at death. On November 7, 1994, the trial court imposed the jury's sentence of death. ⁸ This direct appeal followed. For the reasons expressed herein, we affirm the judgment of sentence imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County.

I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Appellant first claims that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict that he was guilty of first degree murder. When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, an appellate court must view all the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner in order to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to enable the fact finder to find that all of the elements of the offenses were established beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Burgos, 530 Pa. 473, 476, 610 A.2d 11, 13 (1992). Using this standard, the record below establishes the following evidence:

At approximately 10:00 a.m. on December 18, 1993, Troy Davis, Tyrone Greene and appellant departed Philadelphia by automobile for Coatesville in Chester County, Pennsylvania ⁹ with the intent of committing a robbery in Coatesville. Appellant and his cohorts arrived in Coatesville at approximately 12:00 noon. Upon arriving in Coatesville the three men decided to rob a laundromat on Main Street. Appellant and Greene proceeded into the laundromat while Davis waited in the car as the getaway driver. Appellant, armed with a loaded .357 caliber magnum revolver, went to the cashier's area in the rear of the laundromat while Greene, armed with a .22 caliber revolver, stayed near the front entrance to the laundromat. Appellant withdrew his revolver and demanded that the victim give him the money from the laundromat. After the victim refused to give appellant the money, appellant fired a shot which grazed the victim's head. Appellant then fired another shot from a distance of approximately four (4) to ten (10) inches which entered the back portion of the right side of the victim's head and traversed through the victim's brain causing instantaneous death. When appellant fired the fatal shot, his .357 caliber revolver was in double action firing mode, which would require nine pounds of pressure on the trigger to activate the hammer in order to fire a round.

After shooting the victim, appellant backed out of the laundromat waving his revolver at the ten (10) to fifteen (15) people in the laundromat. Appellant then fled in the getaway car to a house in Coatesville where appellant and his cohorts changed clothes and joked about their weapons with the man who resided at the house. The three men eventually left the Coatesville house and returned to Philadelphia where they changed clothes once again at a fast-food restaurant.

Between December 19, 1993 and December 24, 1993, detectives in the Chester County District Attorney's Office interviewed three eye witnesses to the murder. On December 23, 1993, one of the witnesses identified appellant from a photographic array of eight (8) black males prepared by a Chester County detective. On December 24, 1993, a second eyewitness, independently from the first eyewitness, identified appellant from the same photographic array.

On December 27, 1993, an arrest warrant was issued for appellant's involvement in the murder and robbery. At approximately 6:50 a.m. on December 28, 1993, officers of the Philadelphia Police Stakeout Unit arrested appellant at his mother's home in Philadelphia. The Philadelphia police transported appellant to the Philadelphia Police Administration Building where appellant was processed and turned over to the Chester County detectives. After waiving his Miranda rights, ¹⁰ appellant was questioned by the Chester County detectives in the Philadelphia Police Administration Building. Appellant then made a statement in which he confessed to his participation in the robbery and murder. Appellant, however, contended that the shooting was an accident which occurred during a struggle with the victim. Appellant's statement was reduced to a typewritten document by a Chester County detective. Appellant ultimately reviewed, corrected and signed the typewritten document.

In first degree murder cases, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant acted with a specific intent to kill, that a human being was unlawfully killed, that the person accused did the killing, and that the killing was done with deliberation. 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(d); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 528 Pa. 546, 550, 599 A.2d 624, 626 (1991). Specific intent to kill can be proven where the defendant knowingly applies deadly force to the person of another. Id. Death caused by the use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the victim's body is sufficient to prove the specific intent required for a conviction of first degree murder. Commonwealth v. LaCava, 542 Pa. 160, 171, 666 A.2d 221, 226 (1995).

Here, the evidence presented at trial showed that appellant entered the laundromat with a loaded revolver, which is clearly a deadly weapon. After the victim declined appellant's demand for money, appellant pointed the revolver at a vital part of the victim's body. At the time appellant killed the victim, the revolver was four to ten inches away from the victim's head. Also, two eyewitnesses identified appellant as the person who emerged from the rear of the laundromat after the shots were fired which killed the victim and that appellant waved the revolver at them in his attempt to flee the scene. Moreover, appellant admitted to shooting the victim. Accordingly, we find that this evidence is sufficient to establish that appellant acted with malice aforethought and with the specific intent to kill the victim. See Commonwealth v. Bond, 539 Pa. 299, 652 A.2d 308 (1995) (evidence establishing that defendant admitted being at the victim's store; that the defendant aimed a gun at a vital part of the victim's body; that the defendant fired the shot from four feet away; and that defendant admitted shooting the victim, albeit claiming it was an accident, was sufficient to support guilty verdict against defendant for first degree murder).

II. SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENTS

Appellant next argues that the trial court erred by not suppressing the inculpatory statements he made to a Chester County detective at the Philadelphia Police Administration Building on the grounds that the statements were obtained in alleged violation of appellant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Appellant asserts that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because his attorney, who represented appellant in a separate and unrelated federal criminal matter, telephoned the Police Administration Building at the request of appellant's mother to speak with appellant and the Philadelphia police would not allow the attorney to speak with appellant. Thus, appellant contends that his waiver of his right to counsel was invalid.

Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial court's denial of a suppression motion is whether the factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Commonwealth v. Cortez, 507 Pa. 529, 532, 491 A.2d 111, 112, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 950, 106 S.Ct. 349, 88 L.Ed.2d 297 (1985). When reviewing rulings of a suppression court, we must consider only the evidence of the prosecution and so much of the evidence for the defense which remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the record supports the findings of the suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error. Cortez, 507 Pa. at 532, 491 A.2d at 112.

The right to counsel is enunciated in the Miranda warnings. The Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. Commonwealth v. Hughes, 521 Pa. 423, 443, 555 A.2d 1264, 1274 (1989). In order to do so, the Commonwealth must establish that the proper warnings were given, and that the accused manifested an understanding of these warnings. Hughes, 521 Pa. at 443, 555 A.2d at 1274. A defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights must be free of any impermissible inducement by the police that the defendant would receive special treatment if he made an immediate confession rather than wait to confer with his attorney. Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 520 Pa. 151, 553 A.2d 409, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 963, 110 S.Ct. 403, 107 L.Ed.2d 369 (1989). Moreover, a person accused of a crime who has already engaged counsel may, with full knowledge of his rights but in the absence of counsel, effectively waive his right to have counsel present while he is questioned by the police. Commonwealth v. Lark, 505 Pa. 126, 132, 477 A.2d 857, 862 (1984).

Here, in denying appellant's motion to suppress his statement concerning his involvement in the victim's murder, the trial court made findings of fact. Specifically, the trial court found that on December 28, 1993 at 6:50 a.m., appellant was...