Com. v. Hill

• Decision Date: 14 July 1978
• Citation: Com. v. Hill, 388 A.2d 689, 479 Pa. 346 (Pa. 1978)
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Willie HILL, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 689

388 A.2d 689

479 Pa. 346

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v.Willie HILL, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted April 13, 1978.

Decided July 14, 1978.

[479 Pa. 348] Hugh C. Clark, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Edward G. Rendell, Dist. Atty., Steven H. Goldblatt, Deputy Dist. Atty. for Law, Robert B. Lawler, Chief, Appeals Div., Marrianne Cox, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.

EAGEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX, MANDERINO and LARSEN, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

EAGEN, Chief Justice.

Appellant, Willie Hill(a/k/a Willie Frank Hill, Willie F. Hill, Frank Hill, and "Blood") was convicted of murder of the first degree of one Allen Murchinson(a/k/a Alan Murchinson) after a jury trial in Philadelphia.Post-verdict motions were denied and Hill was sentenced to life imprisonment.Other indictments charging criminal conspiracy and possession of an instrument of crime were nol-prossed.This appeal challenges the murder conviction and judgment of sentence.

From the Commonwealth's trial evidence, the jury could find the following: At approximately 8:00 p. m. on September 27, 1975, Hill, who was sixteen years old at the time of this incident and a member of the Somerville gang, was standing on the corner of Godfrey and Ogontz Streets in Philadelphia with a number of his fellow gang members.Hill saw the decedent Murchinson, Bernard Ezell, who was the decedent's cousin, and another person known only as "Smoke" standing on an adjacent corner.Hill mentioned to his fellow gang members that one of them resembled "Sinbad" who allegedly had stabbed Hill and his brother Calvin sometime previously.Hill, along with fellow gang members Bruce Rozier and Larry McKinney(a/k/a McKenny), walked across the street to the boys and asked if they were from the Clang gang (a/k/a Klang) and whether one of them was named "Sinbad."After denying they were members of the Clang gang and any of their names were "Sinbad," Murchinson and his two friends walked away.Hill then shouted "(G)et them."Murchinson and his two companions, who had done nothing provocative, then started running away and a chase ensued.Hill, Rozier, and McKinney were joined by at least four fellow gang members, including one Terrence Davis who later pled guilty to murder of the third degree and criminal conspiracy and testified against Hill at his trial."Smoke" escaped, as did Ezell, but only after being beaten by two gang members.Murchinson, however, was caught and thrown to the ground against some steps by McKinney, who held him by the legs while Hill sat on his chest.They along with the other gang members beat him.Murchinson repeatedly screamed for them to stop.Hill asked if anyone had a knife.McKinney provided one, and Hill then stabbed Murchinson at least twice in the heart and once in the liver.Hill and his companions then fled and Murchinson was found dead shortly after.Hill was arrested later that some night.

In this appeal, Hill contends that the trial court committed reversible error in three instances: by denying his motion for trial on the bill of indictment charging criminal conspiracy after the Commonwealth moved for trial on the murder indictment, and by denying his motions for a mistrial based on allegedly improper and inflammatory leading questions by the assistant district attorney and allegedly improper and prejudicial comments by the assistant district attorney during his opening and closing arguments.^*

It is well established that the propriety of consolidating separate indictments for trial is ultimately within the sound discretion of the trial court and its determination in this regard will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears the rights of the defendant were thereby prejudiced.Commonwealth v. Stock, 463 Pa. 547, 551, 345 A.2d 654, 656(1975)(citing cases).Instantly, Hill fails to point to any prejudice or possible prejudice following the court's ruling and we perceive none.Under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110andCommonwealth v. Campana, 455 Pa. 622, 314 A.2d 854(1974), Hill could not be subjected to another trial on charges arising from the same incident.Moreover, the trial court at the sentencing proceeding granted the Commonwealth's motion to nol-pros the charges for criminal conspiracy and weapons offenses.Under such circumstances, the refusal to consolidate the indictments for trial will not be ruled reversible error.

The questioning by the assistant district attorney, which is the subject of Hill's second complaint, occurred during the direct examination of the co-defendant, Terrance David, who, as noted previously, pled guilty and testified as a Commonwealth witness against Hill.The relevant portion of the record is this:

"(By the assistant district attorney:) And did the Commonwealth or the State allow you to remain out on bail for your own protection until you are sentenced in this case?

"(Davis:) Yes.

"MR. CLARK (Defense Counsel:) Objection.

"THE COURT: Sustained.

"MR. CLARK: Move for mistrial.

"THE COURT: Your motion is denied, Mr. Clark.

"The jury will disregard anything about bail or reasons for bail.

"Q.At any rate, it was agreed that up until the time you are sentenced that you would be allowed to remain out on $10,000 bail.Is that correct?

"A.Yes.

"Q.And that at such time as you were sentenced you would be sent to an institution other than to a place where any of your co-defendants would be placed.Do you understand that?

"MR. CLARK: Objection to that.

"THE COURT: Objection sustained.

"The jury will disregard anything concerning sentencing."

While the first question included in the record quoted above referring to Davis being permitted to remain out on bail "for your own protection" was improper, it was not, under the circumstances, such an impropriety as to require the grant of a mistrial.Cf.Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus, 462 Pa. 43, 337 A.2d 873(1975) and the cases cited therein.As to the questions that followed concerning Davis' sentencing, Hill's counsel merely objected thereto and when the objection was sustained, he did not move for a mistrial.Since the questioning was not of the nature that would warrant the trial court's declaration of a mistrial Sua sponte, and since counsel did not...