Case Title: Com. v. Perkins

Citation: 401 A.2d 1320, 485 Pa. 286

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 1979-03-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
485 Pa. 286 (1979) 401 A.2d 1320 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Michael PERKINS, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued September 18, 1978. Decided March 16, 1979. Reargument Denied May 17, 1979. *287 Mark S. Frank, Pittsburgh, for appellant. Robert E. Colville, Dist. Atty., Robert L. Eberhardt, Charles W. Johns, Robert A. Zunich, Asst. Dist. Attys., Pittsburgh, for appellee. Before EAGEN, C.J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, NIX, MANDERINO and LARSEN, JJ. PER CURIAM: The Court being equally divided the judgment of sentence remains in effect. O'BRIEN, J., files an opinion in support of affirmance which is joined by EAGEN, C.J., and LARSEN, J. ROBERTS, J., files an opinion in support of reversal in which NIX and MANDERINO, JJ., join. POMEROY, former J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. O'BRIEN, Justice. Appellant, Michael Perkins, was tried by a judge sitting with a jury and was convicted of murder of the third degree. Post-verdict motions were denied and appellant was sentenced to serve a prison term of three to ten years. This direct appeal followed. The facts are as follows. On the evening of July 14, 1976, Ronald Fisher, the victim, and six or seven of his friends were drinking beer on the front porch of the Fisher home. As a carload of female acquaintances drove by, someone threw an empty beer bottle, which shattered on the street. The girls pulled over and one of the victim's friends, Eddie Nemeth, left the porch to talk to the girls. Shortly thereafter, appellant drove up the street and ran over the broken glass. Appellant and three occupants got out of their car and accused Nemeth of striking the auto with a baseball bat. When the victim and his friends went to Nemeth's aid, appellant and his companions got back in the car and drove away. The victim and his friends returned to the Fisher porch. Within five minutes, appellant returned with several supporters riding in two other cars. A number of these individuals left their cars and approached the porch. A fight broke *289 out and eventually shots were fired. Appellant and his friends got back in their cars and sped away. Ronald Fisher was pronounced dead on arrival at Allegheny General Hospital from a gunshot wound of the head. Appellant first claims that the trial court erred in charging the jury on appellant's possible criminal liability under the accomplice section of the Crimes Code. Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 306. The facts are as follows. Appellant was charged by information with counts of murder of the first degree, murder of the third degree, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. At trial, various Commonwealth witnesses testified that appellant shot the victim. Defense witnesses, including appellant himself, testified that the group went to the Fisher porch to fight. No one, however, knew that Randy Jones was carrying a gun, and these witnesses testified that Jones did the shooting. Some of the Commonwealth witnesses testified that after the original encounter, appellant, before driving off, yelled that he would be back with a gun. Appellant did testify that he approached the porch with the intention of hurting someone for striking his auto with the bat. Based on this evidence, the trial court instructed the jury on the accomplice theory of liability.[1] Appellant believes this charge was impermissible because he was never charged by information with being an accomplice. *290 Appellant admits that under the Penal Code of 1939, a person could be held guilty as an accomplice even though charged only as the perpetrator. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. App. § 5105. Appellant believes the new Crimes Code compels a different result. I do not agree. The Crimes Code provides: This section of the Crimes Code is based on § 206 of the Model Penal Code. The comments applicable to that section provide: I thus believe it clear that § 306 of the new Crimes Code has the same effect as § 5105 of the 1939 Penal Code in that one may be convicted as an accessory though only charged as a principal. Appellant believes that the Commonwealth has waived the right to have an accomplice charge because of the failure to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 1119(a), which provides: The facts behind appellant's waiver claim are as follows. Prior to closing arguments, appellant submitted his points for charge. The Commonwealth submitted oral points for charge after appellant had closed but prior to the Commonwealth's closing argument. No charge on an accomplice theory was requested. Following closing argument by the Commonwealth, the court was recessed until the next morning, when the jury was to be charged. Before the trial judge went home for the day, the Commonwealth's attorney dropped off photocopies of two cases which indicated that an accomplice charge would be proper. Appellant believes this omission amounts to a waiver by the Commonwealth. As the trial court stated in its written opinion: I agree with the trial court's analysis. I can thus find no error in the court's charging the jury on the accomplice theory. *293 Appellant next complains that the prosecutor had an ex parte communication with the trial court, thus entitling appellant to a new trial. The communication which appellant complains of occurred when the prosecutor handed the trial judge photocopies of two appellate decisions concerning the accomplice charge. As the trial court stated: *294 I again agree with the trial court's analysis and find appellant's contention to be meritless. Appellant finally argues that the suppression court erred in refusing to suppress a positive identification of appellant from a photographic array of twelve pictures.[2] Appellant does not argue that his photo was so dissimilar from the other eleven as to be unduly suggestive. Further, he does not argue that police did anything suggestive in their manner of presenting the photos to the witnesses who identified appellant as the shooter. Appellant's only argument is that police should have included in the array, photographs of other individuals known to be with appellant at the time of the shooting. As the United States Supreme Court stated in Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S. Ct. 967, 971, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1247 (1968): Here, appellant makes no claim of suggestiveness giving rise to the likelihood of a possible misidentification. I believe appellant's claim is meritless. I would affirm the judgment of sentence. EAGEN, C.J., and LARSEN, J., join in this opinion. ROBERTS, Justice. Even though the undisputed record demonstrates that throughout these proceedings the Commonwealth sought *295 only to establish that appellant fired the shots which killed the victim, the Opinion in Support of Affirmance concludes that the trial court could properly grant the Commonwealth's request after the arguments of counsel to instruct the jury on accomplice liability. The Opinion's willingness to approve the Commonwealth's late effort to pursue the already expressly rejected theory of accomplice liability represents an unjustified disregard of the fundamental concepts of notice and opportunity to defend, and requires dissent. Throughout these proceedings, the Commonwealth expressly rejected a theory of accomplice liability. The information specified that the victim died "as a direct result of [appellant's] act of firing the gun." At opening argument and trial, the Commonwealth pursued its exclusive theory that appellant fired the fatal shots. Neither appellant nor the Commonwealth in closing argument addressed accomplice liability. The following colloquy, after closing argument, demonstrates the Commonwealth's rejection of accomplice liability throughout the proceedings: Record at 438-39a. It was only when the prosecuting attorney ex parte contacted the trial court, after closing argument and the evening before the court was to charge the jury, that the Commonwealth sought to introduce a theory that appellant did not fire the fatal shots, but still was liable as an accomplice. The following day, the court included accomplice liability in its charge. Appellant took a timely objection. The prejudice to appellant from the Commonwealth's addition of a theory of accomplice liability lies not so much in the ex parte nature of the Commonwealth's request, but in the introduction of a theory of liability the Commonwealth expressly represented it would not and did not pursue at trial. Appellant, on this record, could and did rely upon the Commonwealth's representation. He had no reasonable notice of possible accomplice liability, and no reason to anticipate, present evidence, or argue to the jury against accomplice liability. The Commonwealth for all practical purposes foreclosed appellant from making any argument against this additional, unanticipated and entirely new theory, advanced only after the presentation of evidence and final argument. I would reverse judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial. NIX and MANDERINO, JJ., join in this Opinion in Support of Reversal. [1] In Com. ex rel. Ruger v. Day, 176 Pa.Super. 479, 108 A.2d 818 (1954), the Commonwealth's evidence tended to show that the defendant therein was the perpetrator of the crime in question while that defendant's testimony showed he was an accessory before the fact of the crime. The court held that the trial court properly charged on both theories of liability. We are unable to see how the colloquy pointed to by the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Roberts, which occurred after closing arguments by both parties, in any way justifies a finding that appellant relied on representations that the Commonwealth was attempting to predicate a finding of guilt solely on a principal theory of liability. Further, if appellant was misled by this colloquy, there were no actions taken by appellant which were in response to the alleged representation. [2] The notes of testimony from appellant's suppression hearing cannot be transcribed. Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1923 and 1924 defense counsel and the district attorney have filed an agreed upon statement of the record. It is from this agreed upon statement that the facts surrounding this issue were drawn.