Com. v. Martin

• Decision Date: 16 February 1999
• Citation: 727 A.2d 1136
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. William Darnell MARTIN, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

727 A.2d 1136

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. William Darnell MARTIN, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted December 8, 1998.

Filed February 16, 1999.

Reargument Denied April 23, 1999.

Kevin G. Sasinoski, Public Defender, Pittsburgh, for defendant.

Michael Streily, Deputy Dist. Atty., Kevin F. McCarthy, Pittsburgh, for Com., appellee.

Before HUDOCK, JOYCE and LALLY-GREEN, JJ.

LALLY-GREEN, J.:

¶ 1 On January 27, 1997, a jury convicted Appellant, William Darnell Martin, of third degree murder. The trial court sentenced Appellant to 20 to 40 years imprisonment. This appeal followed. We affirm.

¶ 2 The record reveals that at various times during the day and evening hours of June 8, 1996, the victim, Lamont Nelson, visited Michael Davis and Carlotta Sturdivant at their apartment in the Hill District section of Pittsburgh. Mr. Davis testified that he knew Mr. Nelson to be a drug dealer.

¶ 3 During the late evening hours of June 8, 1996, Mr. Nelson left the Davis-Sturdivant apartment to purchase sodas. Upon his return, he went into the bedroom and began speaking to someone from the window. He then left the apartment and returned with Appellant. Mr. Nelson and Appellant walked into the kitchen.

¶ 4 It was moments later and shortly after midnight on June 9, 1996, when Mr. Davis and Ms. Sturdivant heard a gunshot. Both jumped from their seats and ran toward the hallway. Ms. Sturdivant reached the hallway first and saw Appellant running down the stairs with "something silver in his hands." N.T. Trial, 1/22/97, at 229. Mr. Davis and Ms. Sturdivant then entered the kitchen and saw Mr. Nelson on the floor in a pool of blood. Ms. Sturdivant telephoned 911. Shortly thereafter, paramedics arrived and pronounced the victim dead.

¶ 5 On June 12, 1996, Pittsburgh Police Officers arrested Appellant. Following administration and waiver of Miranda¹ warnings, Appellant stated that when he and the victim entered the Davis-Sturdivant kitchen, the gun was already lying on the table. Id. at 271. Appellant further stated that he and the victim engaged in an argument concerning Ms. Sturdivant. Id. When the argument escalated, Appellant stated that he and the victim grabbed the gun simultaneously, that a struggle ensued, and that the gun accidentally discharged. Id. at 271-72. Following his statement, Appellant led police to the location where he buried the gun. Id. at 276-80.

¶ 6 At trial, Appellant testified that when he arrived at the Davis-Sturdivant apartment, he and Ms. Sturdivant engaged in an unpleasant verbal exchange. Id., 1/26/96, 480-81. Thereafter, the victim requested Appellant to accompany him to the kitchen where Appellant saw a gun lying on the table. Id. at 482. Appellant stated that the victim picked the gun up and pointed it at Appellant's face. Id. at 484. Appellant testified that he grabbed the gun in self-defense and that he and the victim then struggled for control of the gun. Id. at 484-87. Appellant testified that as he pulled away, he broke the victim's grip on the gun, fell backwards holding the gun, and hit his back on a door when the gun discharged. Id. at 487-88. Appellant testified that he fled the apartment with the gun in order to protect himself from the victim's friends. Id. at 491. After reaching the street, Appellant stated that a man picked him up and drove him to the Lawrenceville section of Pittsburgh, where Appellant hid the gun. Id. at 491-92.

¶ 7 Appellant raises three issues on appeal:

1. When someone is killed during a spur-of-the-moment fight precipitated by the victim pulling a gun on the [Appellant], should the court instruct the jury, as requested as per the standard jury instructions, that it should consider that, "in the heat of conflict," a person typically "has neither time nor composure to evaluate carefully the danger and make nice judgments about exactly how much force is needed to protect himself;"

2. Can the Coroner constitutionally sit as a neutral and detached issuing authority when the Coroner's Office, like the police and district attorney, investigates suspicious deaths and endeavors to determine the cause of death and the identity of the suspected killer; and

3. Does a sentencing court abuse its discretion by imposing a manifestly excessive sentence of the statutory maximum sentence for third degree murder without stating sufficient reasons supported by the record for doubling the guideline range and instead relying on impermissible and duplicative factors and focusing solely on the seriousness of the offense?

Appellant's Brief at 3.

¶ 8 Appellant first complains that the trial court erred by refusing his request to instruct the jury verbatim that, "in the heat of conflict," a person typically "has neither time nor composure to evaluate carefully the danger and make nice judgments about exactly how much force is needed to protect himself." Appellant's Brief at 17-19. This claim is meritless.

¶ 9 When considering a challenge to the trial court's jury instructions, we must consider the instructions as a whole. Commonwealth v. Thompson, 538 Pa. 297, 307, 648 A.2d 315, 320 (1994). The trial court has broad discretion in phrasing its charge and may freely choose its own wording; provided that the court choose language that clearly, adequately, and accurately presents the law to the jury. Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 536 Pa. 402, 412, 639 A.2d 786, 791 (1994). Only where the trial court abuses its discretion or inaccurately states the law is there reversible error. Id. Thus, if the trial court's charge adequately and accurately reflects the law and is sufficient to guide the jury through deliberations, it will be upheld. Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 441 Pa.Super. 296, 657 A.2d 518, 520 (1995). The mere fact that appellant believes that further explanation would have been beneficial does not render a jury charge defective. Commonwealth v. Watley, 548 Pa. 574, 586, 699 A.2d 1240, 1245-46 (1997).

¶ 10 When evidence of self-defense arises from any source, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the following: (1) that defendant was not free from fault in provoking or continuing the difficulty which resulted in the killing; (2) that defendant did not reasonably believe that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and it was necessary to kill in order to save himself therefrom; or (3) that defendant violated a duty to retreat or avoid the danger. Commonwealth v. Stonehouse, 521 Pa. 41, 58-59, 555 A.2d 772, 781 (1989).

¶ 11 Here, Appellant challenges the following instructions on the law of justification for use of deadly force:

Now, the Defendant has submitted to you that he was justified in this killing based upon the theory of self-defense. In considering whether the Defendant's use of force is justified, you should consider the principle that he was entitled to estimate the necessity for use of force in self-defense under the circumstances as he reasonably believed them to be when the force was used. Under the evidence in this case, justification is a defense if the Defendant reasonably believed that the force he used was necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury on the same occasion as the Defendant used force. Because the Commonwealth has the burden of disproving the defense of justification, you may find the Defendant guilty only if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not reasonably believe that the force he used against Lamont Nelson was immediately necessary to protect himself then and there against death or serious bodily injury that was or would have been inflicted upon him by Lamont Nelson.

You may find the Defendant guilty if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant knew that he could avoid the necessity of using deadly force and complete safety by retreating from the scene.

Now, in determining whether the Defendant was justified in this killing, you may consider certain evidence in the case. This evidence and I'm speaking now with the prior convictions of Lamont Nelson for crimes involving violence may be considered only as it bears upon the issue of whether the victim had a propensity for violence and was the aggressor. And in that regard, you have the 1985 conviction for robbery and the 1993 conviction for resisting rest [sic]. In considering this evidence, you should consider the nature of the crimes committed, how long they were committed and the Defendant's knowledge about the circumstances giving rise to these convictions.

You may also consider the Defendant's testimony that he was aware of the victim's propensity for violence. The weight and the effect of that evidence is for you to determine. If you find that the Defendant was armed with a firearm, which he used or attempted to use and that he had no license to carry a firearm, you may, if you choose, consider those facts as evidence of his intention to commit a crime involving violence.

N.T. Trial, 1/27/96, at 636-38.

¶ 12 Appellant specifically complains that the trial court inaccurately stated the law of justification as to the Commonwealth's burden of proving Appellant's reasonable belief in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and the necessity to kill in order to save himself because it failed to "emphasize that traumatic events happen quickly and without time for rational contemplation." Appellant's Brief at 20. The record reveals that the trial court's charge clearly, accurately, and adequately reflected the law of justification and was sufficient to guide the jury through deliberations. The fact that Appellant believes that the trial court should have emphasized the effect of a traumatic event on a person's rational contemplation does not render the court's legally-correct jury charge defective. Watley, 548 Pa. at 586, 699 A.2d at 1245-46. Therefore, Appellant's claim is meritless.

¶ 13 Appellant next complains...