J-S40036-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LOUIS E. ALEXANDER 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1404 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 18, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005336-2013

BEFORE: OTT, DUBOW, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED JULY 10, 2017

Louis E. Alexander appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on 

December 18, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. 

A jury convicted Alexander of murder of the first degree, carrying a firearm 

without a license, and possessing an instrument of crime.1 The trial court 

sentenced Alexander to life imprisonment without parole on the murder 

charge and two concurrent terms of imprisonment of one to two years each 

for the remaining offenses. In this appeal, Alexander challenges the 

sufficiency of the evidence and the weight of the evidence. Based upon the 

following, we affirm.

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(a), 6106(a)(1), and 907(a). 
J-S40036-17

- 2 -

The trial court has aptly summarized the background of this case:

[Alexander] was arrested on October 17, 2012, and charged with 

murder, possessing the instruments of a crime, recklessly 

endangering another person and violations of the Uniform 

Firearms Act. [Alexander] was bound over for court on all 

charges after a preliminary hearing on January 31, 2013. A jury 

trial was held from August 10, 2015 through August 17, 2015 at 

which time [Alexander] was convicted of [murder of the first 

degree, carrying a firearm without a license, and possessing an 

instrument of crime] and subsequently sentenced to life in prison 

without parole. CP-51-CR-0001306-2013 was nolle prossed on 

December 18, 2015.

****

On May 4, 2012, Daquan Windley was standing outside of a bar 

at 15th and Huntingdon Street in Philadelphia. Mr. Windley 

walked across the street to the trunk of a vehicle where a couple 

of people had gathered. Louis Alexander came across the street 

and shot Windley several times. Windley ran down the street and 

[Alexander] chased him and shot him two more times. Daquan 

Windley collapsed on a porch. The police responded, and upon 

finding Windley they scoop[ed] him up and t[ook] him to Temple 

Hospital. Fourteen days later Windley succumbed to his wounds 

and died. Although a complaint was filed on June 13, 2012, 

[Alexander] was not apprehended until October 17, 2012. ...

Trial Court Opinion, 10/27/2016, at 1–2, 3. 

Following his jury conviction on August 18, 2015, Alexander was 

sentenced on December 18, 2015. A motion for reconsideration of sentence 

was filed on December 22, 2015, and an amended post-sentence motion 
J-S40036-17

- 3 -

was filed on December 28, 2015. Both motions were denied by operation of 

law on April 20, 2016, and this appeal followed.2

Alexander first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his 

convictions. He asserts “the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain 

the verdict where witness statements were inconsistent, unreliable and failed 

to prove [Alexander’s] participation in the alleged crime.” Alexander’s Brief 

at 11. 

Alexander states he and the victim were friends, and asserts the video 

surveillance of the incident did not show the actual shooting. Id. Moreover, 

he claims that “although motive is not necessary for the Commonwealth to 

prove its case, it is unarguably a significant factor to consider [] that the 

edited video surveillance did not show that the Decedent and [Alexander], 

while inside Big Al’s Spot Bar, embraced each other immediately prior to the 

incident.”3Id. Alexander points out that the victim told police he did not 

know who shot him. Id. at 11-12. Alexander also relies on his own trial 

testimony that he did not shoot the victim, that he did not have a gun, and 

that a man named Hock reached into the trunk of a car, pulled out a gun, 

____________________________________________

2 Alexander timely complied with the order of the trial court to file a 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal.

3 The parties stipulated that the edited video “mistakenly does not show 

[Alexander] and [the victim] in the bar hugging. That is agreed that that 

happened and it is not shown in the video.” N.T., 8/17/2015, at 48.
J-S40036-17

- 4 -

and then Alexander heard shots. Id. at 12. Additionally, Alexander states 

he testified he went to the victim’s funeral service.

Alexander claims that the surveillance video did not show him with a 

gun and indicated the shooting occurred in the street, which is inconsistent 

with the fired cartridge casings being found on the sidewalk. Id. Finally, 

Alexander asserts Tyree4 Smith, who initially gave a statement to police 

indicating he witnessed the incident, retracted this statement at trial and 

testified that he did not know who killed the victim, and did not see what 

occurred. Id. Alexander relies on Smith’s testimony that he lied to 

detectives because he wanted “to get out of there,” and that “he’s been a 

liar all his life.” Id., citing N.T., 8/12/2015, at 67, 70. 

Our standard of review of a sufficiency claim is well settled:

In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we 

must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, together with 

all reasonable inferences therefrom, the trier of fact could have 

found that each and every element of the crimes charged was 

established beyond a reasonable doubt. We may not weight the 

evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. To 

sustain a conviction, however, the facts and circumstances which 

the Commonwealth must prove must be such that every 

essential element of the crime is established beyond a 

reasonable doubt.

____________________________________________

4 The record reflects the witness’s name as “Tyreeke Smith.” See N.T., 

8/12/2015, at 2.
J-S40036-17

- 5 -

Lastly, the finder of fact may believe all, some or none of a 

witness’s testimony.

Commonwealth v. Priest, 18 A.3d 1235, 1239 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations 

omitted).

Based on our review, we conclude the arguments of Alexander present 

no basis upon which to disturb the determination of the trial court that the 

evidence was sufficient to support Alexander’s convictions. Here, the trial 

court analyzed the Commonwealth’s evidence, as follows:

The evidence in this case was substantial and overwhelming, in 

fact the murder is on videotape! There were numerous 

surveillance cameras in, as well as outside the bar at 15th and 

Huntington Streets. The jury was able to see [Alexander] as well 

as the decedent in the bar and when each of them left the bar. 

Windley stands outside of the bar and Alexander goes to the 

corner where a car pulls up and hands [Alexander] an object 

which is not discernable in the video. Alexander then crosses the 

street to where the decedent was standing with a few other 

people and shoots Windley several times. [Alexander] continues 

to shoot the decedent as he runs up the street. (N.T. 8-17-2015, 

pp. 8-13). 

In addition to the tape-recording of the murder, the parties 

stipulated that the individual in the video wearing the tan 

hooded jacket and blue jeans was [Alexander]. This is the 

individual [who] is shown inside and outside of the bar, crossing 

the street and approaching the decedent immediately prior to 

the gunshots, and running after the decedent with his arm 

extended while hearing more shots. (N.T. 8-11-2015, pp. 18, 

79-80; 83-88, 8-12-2015, p.2). The medical examiner testified 

as to the cause of death and that the wounds received by the 

decedent were consistent with the video. (N.T. 8-11-2015, pp. 

83-88). Tyreeke Smith was at the scene of the murder shooting 

dice, and although when he testified he claimed not to recall 

what happened that evening, his statement on the morning 

following the murder declares that he saw “Louie” go up to the 
J-S40036-17

- 6 -

decedent and shoot Windley, then run back, past Smith with a 

gun in his hand. (N.T. 8-12-2015, pp. 18-20, 23-24). Reginald 

Green also testified that he was outside of the bar at the time of 

the shooting and although he did not see the shooting, he did 

see [Alexander] running away after the crime. (N.T. 8-12-2015, 

pp. 106-109). Detective Marano told the jury about interviewing 

Tyreeke Smith following the incident and how that eyewitness 

had stated he had seen the entire incident including [Alexander] 

walking up to the decedent and firing four or five shots and then 

as Windley runs away, Alexander chasing after him and firing 

three or four more shots. (N.T. 8-12-2015, pp. 121-123). The 

evidence was not only sufficient, it was overwhelming.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/27/2016, at 4–5. We agree with the trial court’s 

analysis of the evidence presented to the jury, and add the following 

comments to address Alexander’s argument.

As already stated, the jury is free to believe all, some or none of a 

witness’s testimony. Priest, supra, 18 A.3d at 1240. The fact that the 

victim and Alexander embraced a short time before the shooting was 

presented to the jury by way of stipulation.5 The jury, however, apparently 

believed the Commonwealth’s evidence. 

Furthermore, the fact that Alexander denied shooting the victim and 

Smith recanted his statement to police does not render the evidence 

insufficient. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that the prior 

inconsistent statements of witnesses who recanted at trial constituted 

sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s murder conviction when the 

____________________________________________

5

 See Footnote 3, supra.
J-S40036-17

- 7 -

witnesses testified at trial and were subject to cross-examination before a 

factfinder that could reasonably credit the prior statements over the 

witnesses’ in-court recantations. Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 1139, 

1168 (Pa. 2012). Here, the jury observed the testimony of Smith, and was 

free to credit Smith’s initial statement to police rather than his recantation. 

See Brown, supra, at 1169 (“[I]t is the finder-of-fact’s ability to make inperson observations of the witness at the time of trial, as he or she explains 

the reasons for the prior statement, which is most crucial to its assessment 

of the witness’s credibility.”). Accordingly, for all the above reasons, 

Alexander’s first argument fails.

The second issue raised by Alexander is framed as a challenge to the 

weight of the evidence. Alexander argues “Smith testified that he lied to 

members of the Philadelphia Police Department in his initial statement and 

that he had been a liar all his life.” Alexander’s Brief at 15. Alexander 

maintains: “When Smith’s testimony is viewed in light of the edited video 

surveillance tapes, which did not show [Alexander] with a gun, and in light 

of the ballistics evidence showing fired cartridge casings on the sidewalk not 

in the street, the jury’s verdict is based upon mere speculation and has no 

factual support.” Id. Alexander also again points out that he testified he 

was a friend of the decedent, as demonstrated by stipulation that missing 
J-S40036-17

- 8 -

video footage showed the decedent and Alexander hugging each other inside 

Big Al’s Spot immediately before the shooting. See id.

Our review of a weight claim is well settled:

The decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial based 

upon a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the 

evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court. 

Commonwealth v. Cousar, 593 Pa. 204, 928 A.2d 1025, 1033, 

1036 (Pa. 2007). Thus, "the function of an appellate court on 

appeal is to review the trial court's exercise of discretion based 

upon a review of the record, rather than to consider de novo the 

underlying question of the weight of the evidence." 

Commonwealth v. Rivera, 603 Pa. 340, 983 A.2d 1211, 1225 

(Pa. 2009). An appellate court may not overturn the trial court's 

decision unless the trial court "palpably abused its discretion in 

ruling on the weight claim." Commonwealth v. Champney, 

574 Pa. 435, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. 2003). Further, in 

reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, a verdict 

will be overturned only if it is "so contrary to the evidence as to 

shock one's sense of justice." Commonwealth v. Diggs, 597 

Pa. 28, 949 A.2d 873, 879 (Pa. 2008).

Commonwealth v. Cash, 137 A.3d 1262, 1270 (Pa. 2016), cert. denied by 

Cash v. Pennsylvania, 137 S. Ct. 1202 (Feb. 27, 2017).

Here, the trial court rejected Alexander’s weight claim, stating:

A claim that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the 

evidence concedes that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the 

verdict. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 744 A.2d 

745 (Pa. 2000). “[T]he weight of the evidence is exclusively for 

the finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the 

evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses.” 

Commonwealth v. Marks, 704 A.2d 1095, 1098 (Pa. Super. 

1997), citing Commonwealth v. Simmons, 541 Pa. 211, 229, 

662 A.2d 621, 630 (1995). A defendant’s request for a new trial 

based on the argument that the verdict was against the weight 

of the evidence will only be granted when the verdict is so 

contrary to the evidence as to make the award of a new trial 
J-S40036-17

- 9 -

imperative. Commonwealth v. Mason, 559 Pa. 500, 513, 741 

A.2d 708, 715 (1999); Commonwealth v. Auker, 545 Pa. 521, 

541, 681 A.2d 1305, 1316 (1996). Where the record adequately 

supports the trial court, the court has acted within the limits of 

its discretion. Commonwealth v. Clay, 619 Pa. 423, 64 A.3d 

1049 (2013); Commonwealth v. Brown, 538 Pa. 410, 648 

A.2d 1177 (1994).

As was noted earlier, the evidence in this case was compelling, 

substantial and overwhelming. The defendant is videotaped 

inside the bar, leaving and going to the corner where he 

retrieves an object from men in a vehicle, crossing over the 

street to where the decedent was standing at which time you 

hear four or five gunshots, then chasing the decedent down the 

street with his arm outstretched as you hear three or four more 

gunshots. An eyewitness gives a statement within hours of the 

murder identifying Alexander as the murderer and a second 

witness identifies the defendant as running away immediately 

following the homicide. Accordingly, the verdict was not so 

contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice and 

therefore, the judgment must stand.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/27/2016, at 5–6.

The trial court applied the correct standard to this weight claim, 

reviewed the evidence, and determined the jury’s verdict was consistent 

with the evidence presented at trial. While Alexander seeks to discredit 

Smith’s initial statement to police based on Smith’s testimony he lied to 

police, the jury was free to accept Smith’s prior inconsistent statements and 

reject his recantation. As this Court recently stated in addressing a 

comparable claim:

Although Appellant discounts Fowler and Graham’s statements to 

police as they later recanted at trial, the jury was free to credit 

the witnesses’ prior inconsistent statements over their 

recantations. In a similar case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court 
J-S40036-17

- 10 -

held that the prior inconsistent statements of witnesses who 

recanted at trial constituted sufficient evidence to support the 

defendant's murder conviction when the witnesses testified at 

trial and were subject to cross-examination before a factfinder 

that could reasonably credit the prior statements over the 

witnesses’ in-court recantations. Commonwealth v. Brown, 

617 Pa. 107, 154, 52 A.3d 1139, 1168 (2012).

Although Graham and Fowler recanted their accounts of the 

crime at trial, they were subject to cross-examination before the 

jury and presented explanations for making the inconsistent 

statements. ... The jury had a full opportunity to observe the 

witnesses and assess the credibility of their explanations for the 

recantations.

Commonwealth v. Brown, 134 A.3d 1097, 1104–1105 (Pa. Super. 2016). 

Likewise, in this case, Smith testified at trial and was subject to crossexamination, and the jury was able to make credibility determinations 

regarding Smith’s recantation and his initial statement.

Furthermore, the jury viewed the surveillance video and watched 

Alexander, who stipulated to being the individual in the video wearing a light 

colored hooded jacket and blue jeans.

6

 The jury also heard Commonwealth 

witnesses testify regarding ejection and location of the casings at the crime 

scene. After reviewing all the evidence, the jury found credible the 

Commonwealth’s evidence that showed Alexander as the shooter. Based on 

our review, we conclude the trial court properly exercised its discretion in 

____________________________________________

6 See N.T., 8/17/2015, at 2-3.
J-S40036-17

- 11 -

finding the jury’s verdict was not so contrary to the evidence as to shock the 

conscience.

Having reviewed the arguments presented by Alexander, and having 

found them to be meritless, we affirm.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/10/2017