Com. v. Mouzon
| Decision Date | 23 April 1974 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Joseph MOUZON, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., Richard A. Sprague, 1st Asst. Dist. Atty., David Richman, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div. James T. Ranney, James Garrett, Asst. Dist. Attys., Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.
Appellant, Joseph Mouzon, was tried by a judge and jury and found guilty of murder in the first degree. Post-trial motions were denied and appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. This appeal followed.
The Commonwealth's theory was that the murder was the product of local gang activity. At trial, two witnesses, Gregory Terrell and Michael Ray Doe, both of whom had originally been questioned by the police about their possible involvement in the murder, testified that they saw appellant beat the victim with a radio antenna. Appellant testified, on his own behalf, that he was not involved and that both Terrell and Doe were involved in the murder. Both Terrell and Doe admitted on cross-examination that they lied to the police when they were originally questioned and Terrell also admitted that although he did not implicate appellant in his original oral statement to the police, he changed his mind and implicated appellant after the police told him that appellant had implicated him. Appellant first argues that the court committed error when it refused to give the following request for charge concerning the testimony of Terrell and Doe:
The court denied the request, apparently taking the position that it was clear that the two witnesses were not accomplices. We are not convinced, particularly since Terrell admitted he was present when 'the gang members stated that they wanted to find white boys to fight.'
As we said in Commonwealth v. Sisak, 436 Pa. 262, 259 A.2d 428 (1969):
'When the facts, with respect to the participation of a witness in the crime for which the defendant is on trial, are clear and undisputed, it is for the court to determine whether or not he was an accomplice, but where the facts are in dispute, or different inferences might reasonably be drawn therefrom, the question whether or not a witness was an accomplice is for the jury.' At page 267, 259 A.2d at p. 431.
The Commonwealth argues that the instant case is controlled by Commonwealth v. Scoggins, 451 Pa. 472, 304 A.2d 102 (1973). In Scoggins, the alleged error was the trial court's refusal to rule as a matter of law that a witness was an accomplice. This is not the situation in the present case. Appellant only sought to have the jury pass upon the question of whether the witnesses were accomplices before deciding what weight to give to their testimony.
While the point for charge submitted by appellant may not have been perfectly correct, the Commonwealth concedes that if, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth of Pa. v. Smith
...is entitled to an instruction as to the weight to be given to that witness's testimony.” Chmiel, 639 A.2d at 13; Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 456 Pa. 230, 318 A.2d 703 (1974). To establish prejudice from counsel's failure to challenge the jury charge on appeal, Appellant must show that there is ......
-
Commonwealth v. Torres
...would have been able to see Appellant during, or immediately prior to, the stabbing. Appellant also relies upon Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 318 A.2d 703 (Pa. 1974), in support of his argument that he was entitled to a Kloiber charge. In Mouzon, two accomplices to a murder testified at trial tha......