Commonwealth v. Gallaway

• Citation: 283 A.3d 217
• Decision Date: 29 September 2022
• Docket Number: 17 WAP 2021
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Derrick GALLAWAY, Appellant
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

283 A.3d 217

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee

v.Derrick GALLAWAY, Appellant

No. 17 WAP 2021

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: April 13, 2022

Decided: September 29, 2022

James Reid Baker, Esq., Sikov & Love, P.A., for Appellant.

Paul R. Scholle, Esq., Michael Wayne Streily, Esq., Allegheny County District Attorney's Office, for Appellee.

BAER, C.J., TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, JJ.

OPINION

JUSTICE TODD

In this appeal by allowance, we consider whether the Superior Court's determination that the probative value of videotape evidence which showed Appellant Derrick Gallaway in prison clothing outweighed its prejudicial effect, such that admission of the evidence did not deprive Appellant of a fair trial under Estelle v. Williams , 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976) (an accused cannot be compelled to stand trial before a jury while dressed in identifiable prison clothing). For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect, and, thus, we affirm Appellant's judgment of sentence.

On the morning of May 27, 2016, the body of Denhad Taiedi (hereinafter, "the Victim"), who owned the Jefferson Hills Motel (hereinafter, "motel") in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, was discovered in the motel's office with a fatal gunshot wound to the head. The office was in disarray, a cash box and bank bag were found to have been mostly emptied of money, and the security camera had been ripped from the wall. Blood stains were found on a tray inside the cash box, inside the bank bag, and on the office door, and a trail of fresh blood drops led from the motel office to the parking lot. Testing of the blood revealed that it matched Appellant's DNA, and, on August 26, 2016, a warrant was issued for his arrest. When officers were unable to locate Appellant at any of his known addresses, his information was entered into the National Crime Information Center ("NCIC"). More than a year later, on November 13, 2017, Appellant was arrested in Carmichael, California, and he was extradited to Pennsylvania on or around December 13, 2017.

On December 13, 2017, Appellant was interviewed by two Allegheny County Police Detectives concerning the Victim's murder. During the interview, which took place at the county police headquarters and was videotaped, Appellant wore bright red prison-issued clothing. When questioned by the detectives, Appellant, who had waived his Miranda rights, denied ever having stayed at the motel, and denied being at the motel in 2016. Appellant further denied ever meeting Shawn Urcini and Danielle Walker,¹ individuals with whom Appellant was alleged to have associated at the motel, and, with respect to Urcini, was alleged to have discussed robbing the motel.

At Appellant's trial, the Commonwealth presented, inter alia , the testimony of Julan Seidel, a motel guest, who stated that she was at the motel on the night before the Victim's body was discovered and encountered Appellant near one of the motel's vending machines. She testified that she observed Appellant talking with Urcini, and overheard them say "something along the lines of they were about to get money that night, like we're about to get this money." N.T. Trial, 8/28/19, at 214. Additionally, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Charles Wright, who testified that he met Appellant in 2015 when Walker brought Appellant to Wright's house to purchase drugs. N.T. Trial, 8/29/19, at 422-24.

The Commonwealth also presented the testimony of Nicole Stercula and Linda Holliday, who worked as office clerks at the motel. Both women testified that Appellant had been a resident of the motel for approximately one month or more in late 2015, until he was evicted following an altercation with the Victim. The women also testified that they had seen Appellant spend time with Walker, who was Urcini's girlfriend. Further, they testified that the Victim had tried to help Walker by allowing her to stay in his office, which gave Walker access to the motel's master key, and by giving her money. N.T. Trial, 8/28/19, at 263-67; N.T. Trial, 8/30/19, at 509. Stercula further testified that, approximately one week prior to the Victim's death, Walker had come to the motel and demanded more money from the Victim, but he refused. N.T. Trial, 8/28/19, at 267.

On the third and final day of trial, the Commonwealth sought and was granted permission to play for the jury an edited version of Appellant's videotaped interview by the police detectives.² The edited version of the videotaped interview (hereinafter, "videotape") was approximately 17 minutes long, and, as noted above, clearly showed Appellant in bright red prison clothing throughout. The Commonwealth asserted that the videotape evidenced Appellant's consciousness of guilt, as it showed him making false statements to police regarding, inter alia , whether he was in Pittsburgh at the time the Victim was killed, whether he had ever stayed at the motel, and whether he knew Urcini or Walker.

Defense counsel objected to the admission of the videotape on the basis that it would prejudice Appellant in the eyes of the jury because it would allow the jury to observe him in prison clothing. Notably, throughout the trial, Appellant wore a suit in the courtroom. The trial court overruled the objection, stating, "[t]his is not the only case where a defendant, a suspect is interviewed in their jail reds." N.T. Trial, 8/29/19, at 276.³ The court offered to give a cautionary instruction to the jury, but defense counsel declined the offer.

After the videotape was played for the jury, Appellant took the stand in his own defense. Contrary to the statements he made during the interview, Appellant testified that, on the night the Victim was killed, he was in the parking lot of the motel with a prostitute when he heard two or three gunshots. N.T. Trial, 8/30/19, at 631-33. He explained that, upon hearing the gunshots, he ducked down and cut his finger on the jagged edge of the prostitute's crackpipe. Id. at 633-34. Appellant stated that he then saw an individual, whom he thought may have been Urcini, walk past the car in which he was sitting. Id. at 662. Thereafter, Appellant walked into the motel lobby because he "was curious," and saw the Victim's body. Id. at 635. According to Appellant, he began to look around for a phone, but did not find one, so he left without attempting to contact police or anyone else. Id. at 635-36. Appellant also admitted that he may have stayed at the motel for two consecutive days, but insisted that the motel clerks were lying when they testified that he had stayed for a longer period. Id. at 645.

Additionally, Appellant denied ever meeting Wright or going to his house. Id. at 640. When asked if he knew Walker, Appellant stated that "there was a girl there the first time I checked in, but I don't recall if her name was Danielle." Id. at 638. When asked if he ever had a conversation with Urcini, Appellant stated that he never had a conversation with him, but that he may have spoken to him "casually" in the doorway of his motel room or near the motel's vending machine, as he "might have come to get a cigarette or something." Id. at 639.

The jury convicted Appellant of first-degree murder,⁴ robbery,⁵ theft by unlawful taking,⁶ and tampering with physical evidence.⁷ The trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment, followed by a term of incarceration of 10-20 years.

Appellant appealed his judgment of sentence to the Superior Court, challenging the trial court's admission of the videotape, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence of the crime of tampering with evidence. Appellant claimed, inter alia , that the probative value of the videotape was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, as it showed him in prison clothing, and thereby "prejudiced his presumption of innocence in the eyes of the jury." Commonwealth v. Gallaway , 2021 WL 129718, *3 (Pa. Super. filed Jan. 14, 2021). In a memorandum opinion, the Superior Court reversed Appellant's conviction for tampering with physical evidence, but affirmed his remaining convictions.⁸

The Superior Court recognized that, pursuant to Estelle , a defendant cannot be compelled to attend trial in identifiable prison clothing because of the "possible impairment of the presumption [of innocence] so basic to the adversary system." Id. at *4 (quoting Estelle , 425 U.S. at 504, 96 S.Ct. 1691 ). The Superior Court further acknowledged that the prohibition against forcing a defendant to attend trial in identifiable prison clothing "is based primarily upon the impact that the ‘constant reminder of the accused's condition implicit in such distinctive, identifiable attire’ might have upon the jury." Id. (quoting Estelle , 425 U.S. at 504-05, 96 S.Ct. 1691 ). Finally, the court cited its own decision in Commonwealth v. Keeler , 216 Pa.Super. 193, 264 A.2d 407 (1970) (en banc ), wherein the court held that the defendant, who first appeared before the jury during jury selection wearing his prison uniform, was entitled to a new trial.

The Superior Court concluded, however, that Estelle and Keeler did not afford Appellant relief:

[R]egarding Appellant's assertion that he was entitled to enter the courtroom with the presumption of innocence, Appellant admits that he was in fact wearing civilian clothes throughout the duration of the trial. The subject video was played on the third day of trial at the conclusion of the Commonwealth's case-in-chief. At this point, the jury already received considerable testamentary and physical evidence connecting Appellant to the crimes. This is not the same as the situation[ ] in Keeler ... wherein the defendant was introduced to the jury pool wearing prison attire. Nor, as in Estelle , was Appellant's brief appearance in prison attire in a video a constant reminder to the jury of his condition of incarceration. The duration of the video was less than twenty

...