Commonwealth v. Patterson
Citation | 180 A.3d 1217 |
Decision Date | 08 February 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 1390 WDA 2016,1390 WDA 2016 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Christopher Scott PATTERSON, Appellant |
Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Stephen C. Paul, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Lawrence W. Koenig, Assistant District Attorney, Greensburg, for Commonwealth, appellee.
BEFORE: STABILE, J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., AND STRASSBURGER, J.*
OPINION BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:
Appellant, Christopher Scott Patterson, appeals from the August 12, 2016 judgment of sentence following his conviction of third-degree murder. After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court provided the following factual and procedural history:
Trial court opinion, 11/1/16 at 1–4 ( ). The trial court filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on November 1, 2016.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
Appellant's brief at 5.
In his first issue for our review, appellant avers that the trial court erred by permitting the jury to view appellant in shackles during the view of the crime scene at the beginning of the trial. Specifically, appellant avers that the trial court failed to consider any alternative measures to restrain and/or "immediately subdue" appellant following an "adverse incident," thus abusing its discretion. (See id. at 31.) We disagree.
It is well settled under common law and the Constitution that, part and parcel of the concept of a fair trial, is a defendant's right to be permitted to appear free from shackles or other physical restraint—this right, however, is not absolute. Commonwealth v. Jasper , 531 Pa. 1, 610 A.2d 949, 955 (1992). Circumstances that have justified the use of restraint include where a defendant disrupts the proceedings, when there is danger of an escape, and where the court believes that an unrestrained defendant may attack others. Id. Proper security measures are within the sound discretion of the trial court, and, thus, will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Commonwealth v. Patterson , 452 Pa. 457, 308 A.2d 90 (1973).
In re F.C. III , 607 Pa. 45, 2 A.3d 1201, 1222 (2010). Our cases have defined an abuse of discretion as, "... not merely an error of judgment but involves misapplication or overriding the law or the exercise of a manifestly unreasonable judgment passed upon partiality, prejudice or ill will." Commonwealth v. L.P. , 137 A.3d 629, 635 (Pa.Super. 2016), quoting Commonwealth v. Ruffin , 10 A.3d 336, 338 (Pa.Super. 2010) (citations omitted).
Appellant cites a litany of cases from the Supreme Court of the United States discussing the appearance of a criminal defendant during trial and the prejudicial effect that a defendant's appearance may have on a jury. See Estelle v. Williams , 425 U.S. 501, 512, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976) ( ); Illinois v. Allen , 397 U.S. 337, 344, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970) ( ); Holbrook v. Flynn , 475 U.S. 560, 571, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gunter v. Superintendent of SCI Benner Twp.
...... It was denied. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the. judgment of sentence on May 8, 2017. Commonwealth v. Gunter, 170 A.3d 1200 (Pa. Super. 2017) (unpublished. memorandum). In that memorandum, the Superior Court set forth. the ... defendant must meet. Id. at 740-741. . . Commonwealth v. Patterson, 180 A.3d 1217, 1231 (Pa. Super. 2018). . . In the instant case, a self-defense claim was clearly. unavailable to ......
-
Commonwealth v. Smith
......However, Appellant did not provide any further development of this claim within his brief. As a result, this issue is waived. Commonwealth v. Patterson , 180 A.3d 1217, 1229 (Pa.Super. 2018) (quoting Commonwealth v. Johnson , 604 Pa. 176, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (2009) (finding that "[a]ny claim for which an appellant fails to include "citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review" is ......
-
Commonwealth v. Knox, 884 EDA 2018
...... (quoting Stokes , 38 A.3d at 853 ). This standard applies equally where the Commonwealth's evidence is circumstantial. Commonwealth v. Patterson , 180 A.3d 1217, 1229 (Pa.Super. 2018). In conducting this analysis, we do not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. See Commonwealth v. Snyder , 870 A.2d 336, 350 (Pa.Super. 2005). Additionally, the Commonwealth's evidence need not preclude every ......
-
Commonwealth v. Jones
......Commonwealth v. Young , 494 Pa. 224, 431 A.2d 230, 232 (1981) ; Commonwealth v. Patterson , 180 A.3d 1217, 1230 (Pa. Super. 2018) ; Commonwealth v. Devine , 26 A.3d 1139, 1146 (Pa. Super. 2011). Self-defense is a complete defense to a homicide charge if 1) the defendant reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and that it was necessary to use ......