2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-4-2011

Lorenzo Johnson v. Neal Mechling

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-2477

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Lorenzo Johnson v. Neal Mechling" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 410.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/410
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2477

___________

LORENZO JOHNSON, 

 Appellant

v.

NEAL MECHLING, SUPERINTENDENT; 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

___________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 4-04-cv-01564)

District Judge: The Honorable John E. Jones, III

___________

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 30, 2009

BEFORE: McKEE, Chief Judge, CHAGARES, 

and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

(Filed October 4, 2011)

___________

Michael Wiseman, Esq. (Argued)

P. O. Box 120

Swarthmore, PA 19081

Amy G. Donella, Esq.

Defender Association of Philadelphia

Federal Court Division

601 Walnut Street
2

The Curtis Center, Suite 540 West

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Counsel for Appellant

William R. Stoycos, Esq. (Argued)

Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania

Strawberry Square

Harrisburg, PA 17120

Counsel for Appellee

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Corey Walker murdered Taraja Williams. At a joint trial, Petitioner Lorenzo 

Johnson was convicted as Walker=s accomplice and co-conspirator in this murder. 

Johnson appeals the District Court=s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254. The sole question certified to us on appeal is whether the 

evidence was sufficient to prove Johnson guilty of first degree murder and conspiracy to 

commit murder.

I.

Because the only issue before us is the sufficiency of the evidence, we must 

recount the evidence that was developed at trial in some detail. We state the facts in the 

light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and will draw all reasonable inferences from 

those facts in the Commonwealth=s favor. See United States v. Dent, 149 F.3d 180, 187 

(3d Cir. 1998). With this standard of review in mind, we turn to the District Court=s 
3

recitation and summary of the trial evidence. 

The first witness to testify was Laura Davis, a patrol officer with the Harrisburg 

Bureau of Police. Officer Davis testified that she was on patrol in the early morning 

hours of December 15, 1995, when she heard a loud booming sound nearby. Officer 

Davis began to search for the source of the sound and encountered individuals who told 

her that someone had been shot in an alley between two houses on Market Street. Officer 

Davis then encountered a crowd of people in front of the Midnight Special bar, located on 

14th and Market Streets, and an individual there indicated he heard a shot in the 1400 

block of Market Street. After Officer Davis searched further, an individual waved her 

over to an alley between 1420 and 1422 Market Street where she discovered the body of 

Taraja Williams. The alley was about four feet wide and extended eight to ten feet back 

to a fence. The body was just inside the alley.

The next witness was Leroy Lucas, a member of the Harrisburg police 

department=s forensics unit. When Officer Lucas arrived at the crime scene, he saw many 

footprints leading from the victim into the alley toward the six-foot fence and on the other 

side of the fence through the alley. Officer Lucas also recovered from the scene a partial 

shotgun with the barrel missing. The officer testified that the body of the victim lay 

approximately ten feet from the fence, relatively close to the sidewalk at the entrance to 

the alley.

Gary Miller, the son of the owner of the Midnight Special bar, testified that he was 
4

working at the bar the night of December 14-15, 2005, and recalled seeing Williams and 

Corey Walker in the bar. He did not recall seeing Lorenzo Johnson. Miller testified that 

he was working when he heard the doorman yelling Ayou all got to take that out of here@

and then went to the door where he saw Walker and Williams leaving. 

Carla Brown, a friend of the victim, testified next. Brown testified that she was in 

the bar on the night of December 14-15, 2005, and saw Walker, Johnson, and Williams 

engaged in an argument. Brown could not hear what was said or who was speaking, but 

the argument involved Aa lot of arm movements.@ Before long, the bouncer told them to 

leave. Brown followed Walker, Johnson, and Williams as they left the bar Abecause she 

wanted to know what was going on.@ Brown recalled that Walker was wearing a long 

leather coat and walked as if he had something hidden under it. The three men walked in 

a single-file line with Walker in the front, Williams in the middle, and Johnson in the 

back. Brown followed slowly behind with her hood up. Walker and Johnson did not 

notice her, but Williams, who knew her, did. The three men continued walking single file 

until they reached the alley where Walker entered first, Williams entered next, and 

Johnson remained at the entrance. As she approached the alley, Williams told Brown to 

keep going. Brown walked a few feet beyond the alley when she heard a loud boom and 

ran. 

Brown admitted that she had been addicted to drugs and that she was high on 

cocaine at the time of the killing. According to Brown, the amount of drugs in her system 
5

on the night of the murder, on a scale of one to ten, was a seven. She also stated that after 

the incident she ran to a friend=s house and got high. Brown testified, however, that she 

had been clean for nine months and was currently employed. Brown admitted that, at the 

preliminary hearing, she had testified that she was drunk at the time of the incident but 

not on drugs. Brown testified that she did not contact police because she was scared that 

she would be killed. Brown admitted that, when she was first contacted by police, she 

told them she knew nothing about the incident. Brown also testified that although she 

knew who Victoria Doubs (another trial witness) was after being shown a photograph of 

her, she was not friends with Doubs and had never talked to Doubs about the incident. 

The next witness was Aaron Dews, an in-house advisor at Visions Youth Works 

which was located in one of the buildings bordering the alley. Dews testified that he and 

another staff member heard a loud boom on the night of the incident. After first checking 

to see if it was the furnace, Dews looked out the window and saw two silhouettes running 

up the driveway away from the house. Dews stated that he could not see the two 

individuals in detail because there was plastic over the window. 

Brian Ramsey, a friend of the victim, was the next witness. Ramsey testified that 

Williams was a cocaine addict who sometimes sold drugs to support his habit. He stated 

that he knew who Walker and Johnson were and that he had seen them together most of 

the time. Ramsey testified that on the night of the incident, he was selling drugs on 

Market Street near the Midnight Special bar. Williams was also out on Market Street 
6

making runs for drug dealers that night. Ramsey first testified that, when he last saw 

Williams, he was moving into an alley with two individuals. On cross-examination, 

Ramsey corrected himself, stating that he saw three individuals with Williams, one female

and two males. This testimony was consistent with the statement he gave police on the 

night of the incident. Ramsey testified that one of the individuals with Williams walked 

with a limp, so Ramsey assumed it was a Acrippled guy@ whom he knew to be a drug 

dealer. Ramsey stated he assumed Williams was in the alley to make a drug deal.

A minute after Ramsey saw Williams and the other individuals enter the alley, he 

heard a loud boom. After Ramsey heard the sound, he walked around the block. When 

he returned, he noticed Walker and Johnson among the crowd of people in front of the 

Midnight Special bar. Ramsey testified that Walker and Johnson seemed stunned, Alike 

sort of maced like what happened, Taraja has been killed . . . are you serious?@ Ramsey 

admitted that he was serving a sentence in Dauphin County Prison, that he was under the 

influence of cocaine on the night of the incident, and that although he was still a drug 

addict, he was in recovery. 

The next witness was Detective Kevin Duffin of the Harrisburg Bureau of Police, 

who investigated the Williams murder. Detective Duffin testified that, about twelve 

hours later, on December 15, 1995, he was in an unmarked car when he approached three 

individuals in a brown Ford. The Ford sped away at a high rate of speed. Detective 

Duffin placed a flashing light on the roof of his car and followed the Ford. When the 
7

Ford struck another car, the three occupants fled on foot. Two of the individuals were 

apprehended. One of them was Lorenzo Johnson, the petitioner.

The next witness, Victoria Doubs, testified that she, Walker, and Johnson were 

Aclose friends@ who Aran the streets together.@ On December 14, 1995, Doubs, Walker, 

and Johnson woke up together in a house at 18th and Carnation Streets. They went out to 

buy some marijuana and then went to a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant near 14th and 

Market Streets. When Williams approached, Walker went over to talk to him and the two 

of them walked back toward Johnson and Doubs. Doubs testified that Walker and 

Williams Awere talking about the money that Taraja [Williams] had owed us.@ Walker 

continued to confront Williams about the money. Williams Astarted getting smart,@ began 

Acussing out@ Walker, and told Ahim he=d give it to him when he felt like and he ain=t 

scared of him.@ Walker hit Williams and they started to fight. Williams won the fight, 

beating Walker with a broomstick.

Many people saw Williams beat Walker, which made Walker angry. After the 

fight, Walker, Johnson, and Doubs left. Doubs and others laughed at Walker and made 

jokes. Walker stated AI=m going to kill that crackhead. I=m going to kill that kid.@ Doubs 

testified that Walker Awas hot. He was heated.@ Johnson was present when Walker made 

these statements. Walker, Johnson, and Doubs returned to the house at 18th and 

Carnation Streets where others were told about the fight and also made fun of Walker. 

This made Walker angry and he repeated that he was Agoing to kill that kid.@
8

Doubs testified that she first told police that late on the night of December 14, 

1995, she, Johnson, Suquan Ripply, Aa guy named Cliff, and a girl named ReeRee@ were 

on their way to New York. The next time Doubs met with police, however, she told them 

that she had lied and did not actually recall being in New York on the night of the murder. 

Doubs told police that she had made up her initial statement because Ashe was going to be 

paid to tell that story.... [M]y bail was supposed to be paid.@ Doubs explained that one of 

Walker and Johnson=s friends named Larry was going to pay her to tell the story to police. 

Doubs stated that she went to New York with this same group Atwo to three times a 

week,@ but could not say that she was in New York with Johnson on December 14 or 15, 

1995. 

Finally, Doubs testified that sometime after Williams= death, she ran into Carla 

Brown and that the two of them got high together. Doubs testified that, while they were 

smoking crack together, Brown stated that Walker had given her a couple of crack rocks 

to take Williams into the alley on the night of the murder. On cross-examination, Doubs 

admitted that she had a conviction for forgery in connection with stolen checks. Doubs 

also admitted that she was in Dauphin County Prison on a robbery conviction.

Sergeant Frederick Wentling of the Pennsylvania State Police testified about the 

partial shotgun recovered from the crime scene. Suquan Ripply also testified. Ripply was

one of the individuals who fled from Detective Duffin on December 15, 1995. Ripply 

first testified that he, Johnson, David Hairston, Vicki Doubs, a man named Clifton, and 
9

woman named Ree-Ree left Harrisburg for New York around 4:00 p.m. on December 14, 

1995 and did not return until 4:00 a.m. on December 15, 1995. Ripply admitted that he 

had initially told police this same story, but later told police that this story was false and 

that he was not in New York with Johnson on the night of the murder. On the stand, 

Ripply testified that his first statement was actually correct and that he told Detective 

Duffin Awhat he wanted to hear@ after the detective told him he would be charged with 

perjury if he was lying. On re-cross examination, Ripply admitted that he made the trip to 

New York with Johnson many times, that he was Aoff with the dates@ when he made his 

first statement to police, and was Anot exactly@ sure whether he was with Johnson in New 

York on December 14 or December 15.

Dr. Wayne Ross, a medical examiner, testified next and related that the cause of 

Williams= death was a shotgun wound to the chest. Eric Chambers, the bouncer at the 

Midnight Special bar on the night of the incident, saw Williams and others get kicked out, 

but did not see Johnson there that night.

The next witness, Lashawyn Jackson, was Walker=s girlfriend and testified that 

Walker was with her in the Midnight Special bar all night on December 14-15, 1995. On 

cross-examination, however, Jackson was uncertain of the date that she and Walker were 

in the bar. Jackson also admitted that she never contacted the police to provide this 

information after Walker=s arrest. The final witness, Clifton Germaine, was a friend of 

Walker and Johnson who testified that on a date he could not remember Johnson, and a 
10

woman whose name he could not remember went with him to New York. Germaine did 

not know who Suquan Ripply or Victoria Doubs were. 

II.

Following a joint three-day jury trial in the Dauphin County Court of Common 

Pleas, Walker was found guilty of murder in the first degree and criminal conspiracy to 

commit murder. Johnson was found guilty as Walker=s accomplice on the murder charge 

and guilty on the conspiracy charge as well. Johnson and Walker were both sentenced to 

mandatory life imprisonment on the murder conviction and concurrent terms of five to ten 

years of imprisonment on the conspiracy conviction.

In a post-trial motion to the Court of Common Pleas, Johnson challenged the 

Commonwealth=s evidence as insufficient to convict him of homicide and conspiracy. 

The Common Pleas Court denied Johnson=s motion, holding: 

We have reviewed the evidence as outlined above and conclude that the 

evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdicts. The Commonwealth 

presented the testimony of Carla Brown who followed the two defendants 

and the victim in the alley where the victim was ultimately shot. She stated 

that Corey Walker was walking with a limp and it looked to her as if he was 

concealing something under his coat. Victoria Doubs= testimony provides a 

motive for the defendants= attack. She stated that earlier on the day of the 

incident, the victim and Corey Walker had an altercation and that the victim 

embarrassed the defendant [Walker] in front of his friends and associates. 

She stated that the defendant [Walker] repeatedly remarked that he was 

going to kill the victim. Although both defense counsel tried to discredit 

this witness= testimony based on her character, prior convictions and current 

incarceration, it was solely within the province of the jury to determine 

whether her testimony was credible. Both defendants presented alibi 

witnesses who testified that they were not in the vicinity of the shooting at 

the time of incident. Suquan Ripply testified that Lorenzo Johnson was with 
11

him in New York at the time of the incident and Corey Walker=s girlfriend, 

Lashawnyn [sic] Jackson, testified that Corey was with her at the Midnight 

Special Bar the entire evening of the incident. Again, it was for the jury to 

determine whether the purported alibi defenses were meritorious.

Johnson and Walker jointly appealed. Johnson argued that the evidence adduced 

at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a guilty verdict and that the verdict 

was against the weight of evidence. After adopting the Common Pleas Court=s 

recapitulation of the evidence, the Superior Court affirmed both convictions and 

sentences, holding:

We conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to support the jury=s 

verdict. The various witnesses= statements revealed that Lorenzo Johnson, 

Corey Walker and the victim were arguing inside the Midnight Special bar 

and were told to leave. The trio walked out, with the victim between 

Lorenzo Johnson and Corey Walker. They proceeded into an alley, and a 

shot was heard. Two men were observed fleeing the scene, and the victim=s 

body was discovered in the alley. Presented with this evidence, the jury had 

a sound basis upon which to conclude that a conspiracy existed between 

Lorenzo Johnson and Corey Walker to murder Taraja Williams.

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 726 A.2d 1079 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998). One Superior Court 

Judge dissented, finding the evidence against Johnson insufficient: 

I dissent from that portion of the Majority=s decision which upholds the 

conviction of Lorenzo Johnson for first degree murder and criminal 

conspiracy . . . I believe that there is no direct evidence, nor can any be 

inferred, linking defendant Johnson to the death of Taraja Williams nor any 

agreement with defendant Walker which resulted in Williams= death.

Id. Like the trial court, the Superior Court did not mention or analyze the elements of the 

offense of first-degree murder--the foregoing is the extent of its sufficiency of the 

evidence analysis.
12

Johnson next filed a petition for allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania 

Supreme Court, again arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his 

convictions and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the petition without opinion. Commonwealth v. 

Johnson, 737 A.2d 741 (Pa. 1999). 

Johnson petitioned for relief under Pennsylvania=s Post Conviction Relief Act 

(PCRA), raising several grounds for relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Court 

of Common Pleas denied each of Johnson=s claims and Johnson appealed to the Superior 

Court, reasserting the same grounds for relief. The Superior Court affirmed the denial of 

Johnson=s PCRA petition.1 Johnson filed a petition for allowance of appeal with the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court which was denied without opinion.

 

1.While an appeal of his first PCRA petition was pending in the Superior Court, 

Johnson filed a second petition in the trial court, raising a claim of after-discovered 

evidence. An affidavit had been obtained from Brian Ramsey, one of the 

Commonwealth=s trial witnesses. In this affidavit, Ramsey recants his trial testimony. He 

avers that while he told police he saw both Walker and Johnson at the scene of the crime, 

he really only saw Walker. Ramsey indicated that he Ajust assumed that since I saw Mr. 

Walker, that Mr. Johnson was somewhere in the midst of the crowd, but I actually never 

saw Mr. Johnson.@

After exhausting his available remedies in state court, Johnson filed a petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court. In his petition, Johnson alleged 

that: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the guilty verdicts, 

thereby violating his rights to due process under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 
13

(1979); (2) that the Commonwealth failed to disclose the existence of a plea agreement 

with its trial witness, Victoria Doubs, thereby violating his rights to due process under

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (3) that his trial counsel=s performance was 

ineffective, violating his Sixth Amendment rights. The District Court denied relief on all 

three of Johnson=s claims. The District Court later amended its judgment, and granted 

Johnson a certificate of appealability on the question of whether there was sufficient 

evidence to convict him of first-degree murder and conspiracy, a question we now 

address.

III.

A.

Our jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. '' 1291 and 2253. The District Court had 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '' 2241 and 2254. Because the District Court ruled on 

Johnson=s habeas corpus petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing, our review 

of the District Court=s decision is plenary. Marshall v. Hendricks, 307 F.3d 36, 50 (3d 

Cir. 2002). Review of state court determinations is governed by the Antiterrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act (AAEDPA@), codified at 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(d). AEDPA 

provides that

[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody 

pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to

any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings 

unless the adjudication of the claim

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable 
14

application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the 

Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination 

of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. ' 2254(d). State court application of federal law is contrary to clearly 

established federal law under ' 2254(d)(1) Aif the state court arrives at a conclusion 

opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court 

decides a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially 

indistinguishable facts.@ Marshall, 307 F.3d at 51 quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 

362, 413 (2000) (O=Connor, J., concurring). The state court=s application of federal law is 

unreasonable where Athe state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from 

[the Supreme] Court=s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the 

prisoner=s case.@ Williams, 529 U.S. at 413; see also Lambert v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 210, 

234 (3d Cir. 2004). The state court=s decision must also have been objectively 

unreasonable. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003); Williams, 529 U.S. at 409 

(AStated simply, a federal habeas court making the >unreasonable application= inquiry 

should ask whether the state court=s application of clearly established federal law was 

objectively unreasonable.@). 

B.

Following the standard set forth in AEDPA, we must first determine whether the 

Pennsylvania Superior Court=s denial of Johnson=s adjudication of the merits of the

sufficiency of the evidence claim was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, 
15

clearly established federal law.2 We agree with the District Court that the state court 

incorporated the proper federal standard; therefore, it was not contrary to clearly 

established law. The question remains whether the Superior Court=s determination that 

there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to infer intent was an unreasonable 

application of that federal standard. 

The applicable clearly established federal standard is set out by the Supreme Court 

in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). AThe Constitution prohibits the criminal 

conviction of any person except upon proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt@ of each 

element of the offense. Id. at 309. However, Aa properly instructed jury may occasionally 

 

2.

AWe have interpreted ' 2254(d)=s adjudication on the merits language to mean 

that >when, although properly preserved by the defendant, the state court has not reached 

the merits of a claim thereafter presented to a federal habeas court, the deferential 

standards provided by AEDPA . . . do not apply.=@ Holloway v. Horn, 355 F.3d 707, 718 

(3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Appel v. Horn, 250 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2001)) (additional 

citations omitted). The Superior Court=s opinion notes that Johnson challenges the 

sufficiency of the evidence and applies the correct standard of review: Ain addressing a 

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court must view the evidence admitted at 

trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict winner, and draw all 

reasonable inferences therefrom.@ 726 A.2d 1079. Although the Superior Court=s 

discussion was sparse and its analysis conclusory, we find that the Superior Court 

adjudicated Johnson=s sufficiency claims on the merits. The Superior Court=s opinion 

concluded that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the Averdicts@ and also noted that 

circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to convict a defendant of first degree murder. 

The dissenting judge disagreed with the majority=s decision which Aupholds the 

conviction of Lorenzo Johnson for first degree murder and criminal conspiracy,@ clearly 

contemplating sufficiency claims as to both charges. Consequently, AEDPA standards 

govern and we will review the sufficiency challenge to Johnson=s conviction under those 

rubrics.
16

convict even when it can be said that no rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt.@ Id. at 317. A[W]hen such a conviction occurs in a state trial, it cannot 

constitutionally stand.@ Id. at 318. A reviewing court must determine Awhether, after 

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of 

fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.@ Id. 

at 319 (emphasis in original). This Astandard must be applied with explicit reference to 

the substantive elements of the criminal offense as defined by state law.@ Id. at 324 n.16.3

We look to Pennsylvania law only to establish the elements of the offense and then we 

turn to the federal question of whether the Superior Court was objectively unreasonable in 

concluding that sufficient evidence supported Johnson=s convictions. See id. at 324 n.16.

C.

 

3.

 The Commonwealth argues that Johnson waived the issue of the sufficiency of 

the evidence to establish his intent to kill by not specifically raising it in the District 

Court. Johnson has preserved this issue. He argued to the District Court that in order to 

establish his intent to kill, the Commonwealth needed to show that Johnson Apossessed a 

shared criminal intent with Walker, and that acting with such intent, he [Johnson] aided or 

abetted the commission or planning of the offense.@ Petitioner=s Memorandum of Law in 

Support of Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. We therefore reject the 

Commonwealth=s waiver argument.

A Pennsylvania statute defines first-degree murder as an Aintentional killing.@ 18 

Pa. Con. Stat. Ann. ' 2502(a). An Aintentional killing@ is further defined by statute as 

killing Aby means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate 

and premeditated killing.@ 18 Pa. Con. Stat. Ann. ' 2592(d). Johnson was found guilty of 
17

first-degree murder as an accomplice. Under Pennsylvania law, one is an accomplice if, 

Awith the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense,@ he or she 

either Asolicits such other person to commit [the crime],@ or Aaids or agrees or attempts to 

aid such other person in planning or committing [the offense].@ 18 Pa. Con. Stat. Ann. '

306(c)(1)(i) and (ii); see also Everett v. Beard, 290 F.3d 500, 512 (3d Cir. 2002) (to find 

an accomplice guilty of first-degree murder, the jury must find that the accomplice shared 

the killer=s specific intent to kill); Commonwealth v. Cox, 863 A.2d 536, 551 (Pa. 2004) 

(Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charged as an 

accomplice was an active partner in the crime who shared with the principal the criminal 

intent necessary to convict for the underlying crime and who actively induced, 

encouraged or aided the principal in the commission of the underlying crime). Viewing 

the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and drawing all reasonable 

inferences from the evidence, we conclude that no Arational trier of fact could have found 

the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.@ Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319.

As we have indicated, a conviction will survive a due process challenge if the 

record contains sufficient evidence to permit any reasonable fact finder to conclude that 

Johnson, as an active partner, shared Walker=s intent to kill Williams and that Johnson 

acted in such a way as to encourage or facilitate Williams= murder. See Smith v. Horn, 

120 F.3d 400, 410 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing 18 Pa. Con. Stat. Ann. ' 2502(a)). In cases like 

this, where Johnson was not the shooter, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has noted the 
18

difficulty in securing a first-degree murder conviction based solely on accomplice 

liability: Awhere the accomplice was not the shooter, proof of that shared intent generally 

is no easy task.@ Commonwealth v. Raymond Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 543 (Pa. 2009). 

Not surprisingly, the Commonwealth offered no direct proof of Johnson=s 

intentions relying instead on circumstantial evidence and the inferences that can be drawn 

therefrom. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228, 1238 (Pa. 2004); 

Commonwealth v. Ford, 650 A.2d 433, 437 (Pa. 1994) (specific intent to commit crime 

may be established through defendant=s words or acts, or circumstantial evidence, 

considered with all reasonable inferences from that evidence). It is essential Athat there 

be a logical and convincing connection between the facts established and the conclusion 

inferred.@ United States v. Bycer, 593 F.2d 549, 550 (3d Cir. 1979). Put another way, 

A[t]he difference between an inference and a speculation is that an inference is a reasoned 

deduction from the evidence, a speculation is a guess.@ Commonwealth v. Konz, 402 

A.2d 692, 700 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979). AIf an inference is merely one of two or more 

possibilities of roughly equal appeal or probability, then the proposition has not been 

proven beyond reasonable doubt and the verdict is a product of speculation and 

conjecture.@ Commonwealth v. Gruff, 822 A.2d 773, 788 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). 

For an inference to be reasonable, it Amust flow from facts and circumstances 

proven in the record, and must be of such volume and quality as to overcome the 

presumption of innocence and satisfy the jury of an accused=s guilt beyond a reasonable 
19

doubt.@ Commonwealth v. Bostick, 958 A.2d 543, 560 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008). That is to 

say, a reasonable inference is one where the fact inferred is Amore likely than not to flow 

from the proved fact on which it is made to depend.@ Commonwealth v. McFarland, 308 

A.2d 592, 594 (Pa. 1973) quoting Turner v. United States, 395 U.S. 398, 405 (1970). The 

trier of fact cannot base a conviction on conjecture and speculation and a verdict which is 

premised on suspicion will fail even under the limited scrutiny of appellate review. Id.

quoting Commonwealth v. Smith, 956 A.2d 1029, 1035-36 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008)). See 

also Commonwealth v. Wodjak, 466 A.2d 991, 996 (Pa. 1983) (inferences must be 

reasonable and establish a prima facie case of criminal culpability; anything less would 

rise no higher than suspicion). 

When reviewing a habeas petition, we look to the Alast reasoned decision@ of the 

state courts on the petitioner=s claims. Bond v. Beard, 539 F.3d 256, 289-90 (3d Cir. 

2008). Here, that Alast reasoned decision@ on Johnson=s sufficiency of the evidence claim 

was the Superior Court=s memorandum opinion on direct appeal. In affirming Johnson=s 

convictions, the Superior Court relied on the following evidence as proof of Johnson=s 

intent: (1) Johnson, Walker and Williams were seen arguing in the Midnight Special bar 

and were told to leave the premises on the night of the murder; (2) they left the bar, with 

the victim walking between Walker and Johnson; (3) they proceeded to an alley and a 

shot was heard; (4) two individuals were seen running from the alley; and (5) the victim=s 

body was discovered in the alley, along with a shotgun. Of course, the Commonwealth 
20

may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt 

by relying on wholly circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 

281 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009). However, Pennsylvania courts have instructed that when 

Aapplying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually 

received must be considered.@ Id.

We find the record lacking in sufficient evidence to support the necessary 

conclusion that Johnson shared Walker=s intent to murder Williams and that Johnson 

acted in a manner that encouraged or facilitated the murder. Viewing, as we must, the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, such evidence does not permit 

any reasonable fact finder to reasonably infer Johnson=s specific intent to kill Williams. 

Let us be clear about the findings of fact the record does and does not support. A 

trier of fact could reasonably infer from these facts that Johnson and Walker shared a 

common intent to confront, threaten or harass Williams, but the statute requires Johnson 

and Walker to have a shared intent to kill Williams. Perhaps it can be speculated from 

this record that Johnson shared Walker=s intent to kill Williams, but we do not find it 

reasonable to infer an element of the offense based on mere speculation. Although such 

speculation may be possible, it is Constitutionally insufficient to support a conviction. 

See, e.g., Newman v. Metrish, 543 F.3d 793, 796 (6th Cir. 2008), cert denied sub nom. 

Metrish v. Newman, 130 S.Ct. 1134 (2010); Parker v. Renico, 506 F.3d 444, 452 (6th Cir. 

2007) (distinguishing reasonable speculation from sufficient evidence in finding a state 
21

court=s application of standard set forth in Jackson to be objectively unreasonable).

D.

We start with the argument in the bar on the night of the murder, mindful that a 

defendant=s presence at the scene of the crime, mere knowledge of that crime or 

association with the criminal actor cannot be a basis for accomplice liability. 

Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228, 1238 (Pa. 2004). Gary Miller, the bar 

owner=s son, did not recall Johnson being at the bar, but did recall the bar=s doorman 

ordering Walker and the victim to leave the premises. Chambers, the doorman, recalls 

ejecting Williams and Walker from the bar, but testified he did not see Johnson. The 

Commonwealth maintains that Johnson, Walker and the victim engaged in a heated 

argument at a local tavern on the night of the murder. The difficulty, however, is that the 

lone witness to this event C Carla Brown C testified only that she Asaw@ an argument and 

did not Ahear@ the contents of the discussion. Brown does not testify that Johnson spoke 

during this argument, and indeed, does not testify that Johnson was actively involved in 

the argument. She demonstrated various gestures she witnessed, but did not identify who 

made these gestures. Brown does not affirmatively identify Johnson as even participating 

in the argument. Indeed, Brown=s testimony tells us nothing of Johnson=s actions during 

this argument. Without knowing the content of the argument, and whether Johnson was 

involved in it, Brown=s testimony adds nothing on the question of intent; any inference

drawn therefrom as to Johnson=s intent to kill Williams would only be speculation.
22

Likewise, evidence that Johnson walked with Walker and the victim to an alley is 

not evidence of his specific intent to kill Williams. Brown, who also followed the three 

men out of the bar and down the street, testified that they walked in a Asingle file line.@ 

She testified that Johnson Anever went in [to the alley],@ but at another point in her 

testimony related that Athey walked him in that alley.@ Later, in a summary of her 

testimony, she related that Aall I know is who walked him [into] that alley and who stood 

in front of the alley.@ The Commonwealth relied on Brown=s testimony that the victim 

was Awalked@ into the alley as evidence of Johnson=s specific intent. If Brown had 

testified that Johnson actively pushed, shoved, ordered or otherwise forced the victim into 

the alley, or prevented him from leaving it, it would be reasonable to infer Johnson=s 

specific intent. Brown does not so testify, nor does her testimony reasonably permit any 

such inference. Any inference drawn from this testimony as to Johnson=s specific intent 

to kill is an unreasonable one. 

Further, the Commonwealth relied on Brian Ramsey=s opinion that Williams was 

Aforced@ into the alley as evidence of Johnson=s intent. Reliance on Ramsey=s testimony 

to establish intent is unreasonable. Brian Ramsey testified that he did not see the victim 

enter the alley and did not describe any physical action in his testimony that would lead to 

a reasonable inference that anyone Aforced@ the victim into the alley. Ramsey testified 

that 

I didn=t see them go down the street with Taraja [Williams]. I saw, when I 

looked, Taraja was walking into the alley first, and there were two other 
23

people behind him, and one was - - stayed there by the sidewalk. But, like I 

said, I really only glanced, you know. And after I looked, I figured he was 

all right, so I just turned back around.

App. at 233. Ramsey also does not identify who Aforced@ the victim into the alley: 

Q: Were these people walking down 14th Street in a line, were they like 

one after the other, or were they side by side, or how were they when 

you saw them at the alley?

A: When I saw these people, they were on Market Street.

Q: I=m sorry, Market Street.

A: I wouldn=t really say. I would say they were just B I looked, you 

know. One person was already B Taraja had already walked into the 

alley. The second person was walking in behind him.

Q: So Taraja went in first?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay.

A: So to my B I would say that he was forced in that alley.

Q: But all you saw is that he walked in there on his own?

A: Yes.

App. at 246. Ramsey contradicts himself. First he comments that the victim was forced 

into the alley, and then testifies that he only saw the victim walk into the alley. Although 

not mentioned as evidence by the Superior Court, the District Court accepted Ramsey=s 

opinion that Williams was Aforced@ into the alley as fact. Here, the problem is that 

Ramsey=s opinion is unsupported by his own testimony. Ramsey provided no facts to 

back up his opinion, nor did he identify who Aforced@ the victim into the alley. Without 

more, it is unreasonable to rely on this evidence to establish an inference that Johnson 

intended to kill Williams.4

 

4.The District Court opined that AJohnson completely ignored Brown=s testimony 

that he walked Williams into the alley and Ramsey=s testimony that Williams was forced 
24

The Commonwealth argues that Johnson=s intent to kill can be reasonably inferred 

from the fact that he purposefully blocked the entrance to the alley. The District Court 

found this evidence to be an important inference to be drawn as to Johnson=s specific 

intent. The difficulty is, however, that there is no record evidence indicating that Johnson 

blocked the entrance to this alley. There is no evidence that Williams, the victim, 

attempted to flee the alley and Johnson prevented him from doing so. All the evidence 

shows is that Johnson stopped walking at the entrance to the alley when the people he was 

followingCWalker and WilliamsCentered it. Although one could speculate that Johnson 

stopped at the entrance to prevent Williams from escaping, such a picture of the night=s 

events cannot be reasonably inferred from the evidence without engaging in the type of 

speculation prohibited by the Due Process clause.

 

into the alley. Further, in light of the multiple altercations with Williams that day, 

including the heated argument in the bar only moments before, it is certainly a rational 

inference that Johnson intentionally walked Williams toward the alley and the 

purposefully stood blocking the entrance.@ 541 F.Supp.2d at 674. The problem, however, 

is that the District Court misreads Brown=s testimony. She did not testify that Johnson 

walked Williams into the alley or blocked his exit therefrom. Ramsey testified that the 

victim walked into the alley Aon his own.@

The Superior Court lastly identified the fact that two men were seen fleeing the 

scene of the crime as evidence of Johnson=s intent. Here, the Superior Court most likely 

was relying on the testimony of Aaron Dews. While working in a building bordering the 

alley where the murder took place, Dews heard a noise he originally thought was a 

furnace. After checking the furnace, Dews looked out a window and saw two people 
25

running up the driveway. He could not see anything more. This is not evidence of 

Johnson=s specific intent to commit murder. Dews cannot identify the people who ran 

down the driveway, he did not witness anyone going into the driveway, he could not 

identify Johnson as one of the individuals in the driveway C indeed, he admitted that his 

view was obstructed by plastic sheeting on the window. It is not reasonable, therefore, to 

infer from Dews= testimony that Johnson was one of these individuals running in the 

driveway. 

Moreover, that Johnson was in a car that fled from the police is not evidence of his 

intent to commit murder. Pennsylvania courts have held that flight from the scene of the 

crime may evidence a consciousness of guilt, Aalong with other proof, from which guilt 

may be inferred.@ Commonwealth v. Bruce, 717 A.2d 1033, 1037-38 (Pa. Super. Ct. 

1998); see also Commonwealth v. Moore, 937 A.2d 1062, 1067 (Pa. 2007). However, 

Athis only holds true in cases in which the other evidence of guilt consists of more than 

mere presence at the scene.@ Commonwealth v. Hargrave, 745 A.2d 20, 24 (Pa. Super. 

Ct. 2000). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has instructed that Amere presence on the 

scene both immediately prior to and subsequent to the commission of a crime and flight 

therefrom is not sufficient evidence to prove involvement in the crime.@ Commonwealth 

v. Goodman, 350 A.2d 810, 811-12 (Pa. 1976). AThe additional element of flight, which 

is as consistent with fear as with guilt, does not convert presence into proof of guilt.@ Id.

at 811. 
26

Harrisburg police detective Kevin Duffin testified that, while on patrol in an 

unmarked police car, he encountered another vehicle containing three African-American 

males. Duffin followed this vehicle until it hit another car and stopped. Duffin testified 

that the vehicle=s occupants fled and that two of them were later apprehended C one of 

them was petitioner Johnson. Duffin, however, was not at the scene of the crime during 

this time, nor was Johnson fleeing the scene of the crime when he was apprehended 

approximately twelve hours later. Any inference that Johnson=s flight from Duffin is 

evidence of his specific intent to kill is an unreasonable one.

Although not specifically discussed, or indeed even mentioned by the Superior 

Court, the Commonwealth points to testimony concerning a debt that it argues was owed 

to Johnson by Williams as evidence of motive, which in turn, would reasonably permit a 

fact finder to infer Johnson=s specific intent to aid and abet Williams= murder. The 

problem for the Commonwealth, however, is that the state trial court specifically found 

that this debt was owed only to Walker, not to Johnson. Indeed, the prosecutor argued at 

the trial that the debt was owed only to Walker. Any inference drawn from this debt to 

establish Johnson=s specific intent is unreasonable because it is foreclosed by the trial 

court=s specific finding of fact that the debt was not owed to him. We accord a 

presumption of correctness to the state court=s factual findings and the Commonwealth 

has presented nothing to overcome this presumption. See Lewis v. Horn, 581 F.3d 92, 

100 (3d Cir. 2009); 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(e)(1).
27

The District Court implied that, taken separately, the pieces of evidence presented 

by the Commonwealth were insufficient to convict Johnson. 541 F.Supp.2d at 674-75. 

We agree. However, we must view each piece of evidence as if it is connected to the 

whole and determine if the totality of the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, establishes criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. We have done so 

and are convinced that the evidence produced here simply would not allow a reasonable 

juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson intended to kill Williams. The 

web of evidence in this case is composed of strands of evidence that lead, more likely 

than not, to the conclusion that Johnson neither possessed the intent to kill Williams, nor 

assisted in the killing.

Nor is the evidence sufficient to support the necessary conclusion that Johnson 

acted in such a way that he intended to encourage, solicit, aid or facilitate Walker in 

killing Williams. See 18 Pa. Con. Stat. Ann. ' 306(c)(1)(i) and (ii). The evidence simply 

does not permit any reasonable factfinder to find Johnson guilty on charges of aiding and 

abetting first degree murder as that crime is defined by Pennsylvania statute.

E.

To convict a defendant of conspiracy in Pennsylvania, the trier of fact must find 

three things from the evidence: A(1) the defendant intended to commit or aid in the 

commission of the criminal act; (2) the defendant entered into an agreement with another 

... to engage in the crime; and (3) the defendant or one or more of the other
28

co-conspirators committed an overt act in furtherance of the agreed upon crime.@ 

Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 956 A.2d 926, 932 (2008), cert. denied, B U.S. B, 129 S.Ct. 

1989 (2009). First-degree murder requires the specific intent to kill, and that mens rea is 

also required of accomplices and co-conspirators. See 18 Pa. Con. Stat. Ann. ' 2502(a); 

Smith v. Horn, 120 F.3d 400, 410 (3d Cir. 1997), citing Commonwealth v. Huffman, 536 

Pa. 196, 638 A.2d 961 (1994).

Inasmuch as we have already determined that the Commonwealth failed to produce 

sufficient evidence to allow a rational jury to find specific intent to kill on the first-degree 

murder charge, it necessarily follows that they failed to do so on the conspiracy charge as 

well. 

IV. 

The Superior Court=s decision on the merits of Johnson=s sufficiency challenge was 

an erroneous application of Jackson. We must still determine, however, whether that 

court=s decision was also Aunreasonable@ under AEDPA. We have undertaken a careful 

and detailed review of the evidence and have made an assessment of the evidence 

produced for each element of the offense charged. We have determined that there was 

insufficient evidence to prove Johnson=s specific intent to commit murder. The Superior 

Court unreasonably applied the standard governing when inferences may be relied upon 

to establish elements of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard 

requires that the inference in question must be Amore likely than not to flow@ from the 
29

facts already established. Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 36 (1969). The Amore likely 

than not standard@ is well established. It cannot be satisfied here because the record 

simply does not allow a reasonable juror to infer that Johnson intended to kill Williams. 

The District Court erred by concluding that the Superior Court=s decision was a 

reasonable application of Supreme Court precedent to the facts of this case. The Superior 

Court relied on speculation and unreasonable inferences when it reviewed the 

circumstantial evidence proffered by the Commonwealth against Johnson. Doing so was 

not only error, but was unreasonable because it allowed Johnson to be convicted on 

something less than proof of Aevery element of the offense@ of conviction beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 316. 

V.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court=s decision affirming Johnson=s conviction was an 

unreasonable application of the Constitutional requirement that the Commonwealth 

present evidence sufficient to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 

28 U.S.C. ' 2254(d)(1); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 365-68 (1970); Jackson, 443 U.S. at 

319. 

Accordingly, for all the reasons we have set forth above, we will reverse the 

District Court=s order denying habeas relief and remand to that court with instructions for 

it to issue the writ.
CHAGARES, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

I agree with my learned colleagues‟ explanation of the 

legal standards in this case. However, I disagree with the 

majority‟s application of the law and I therefore respectfully 

dissent. I would affirm the District Court‟s denial of Lorenzo 

Johnson‟s petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the 

state courts‟ rejection of his sufficiency of the evidence claim 

was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, 

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). 

Viewing the evidence, as we must, in its totality and in 

the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, I believe the 

state court reasonably determined that a rational juror could 

infer that Johnson had a specific intent to aid Walker in 

murdering Taraja Williams. Weaving together the testimony 

of Carla Brown, Gary Miller, Jr., Victoria Doubs, Brian 

Ramsey, Detective Kevin Duffin, and Aaron Dews, the 

Commonwealth was able to paint the following picture. On 

the morning of December 14, 1995, Johnson and Walker, 

who were always together, woke up in the same house and 

went with Doubs to the Kentucky Fried Chicken (“KFC”) 

near the intersection of 14th and Market Streets in Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania. Per Doubs‟s testimony, Williams approached, 

and Walker went to confront him about the debt that he owed 
2

“us.”1 

Defiant, Williams told Walker that he would get the 

money when Williams felt like it and that he was not scared 

of Walker. A fight ensued, and Williams beat Walker with a 

broomstick. As a result – and in Johnson‟s presence –

Walker was laughed at and embarrassed by his peers. In 

response, Walker furiously and repeatedly stated – again in 

Johnson‟s presence – that he intended to kill Williams.2 

 

1 Emphasizing the ambiguity of Doubs‟s statement that 

Williams owed a debt to “us,” Johnson argues that an 

inference that Williams owed a debt to Walker, Doubs, and 

Johnson (as opposed to only Walker and Doubs) was 

impermissible because the trial court made a finding that the 

debt was owed only to Walker. Because, he says, it was just 

as likely that Doubs‟s reference to “us” was to only herself 

and Walker, an inference that the debt was owed to Johnson 

as well is impermissible. The Commonwealth is ultimately 

correct in its argument, however, that the debate does not 

much matter: whether Williams owed money to all three or 

only to Doubs and Walker is beside the point because the 

testimony concerning the debt provided Johnson with 

knowledge of Walker‟s motive to kill Williams. Together 

with other evidence discussed in this opinion, I believe that it 

was reasonable for the state court to find that Johnson‟s intent 

to aid Walker can be inferred from his prior knowledge 

combined with his actions at the time of the murder.

2 Given this testimony, it is perplexing that Johnson can argue 

that “[e]ntirely missing from the Commonwealth‟s proof is 

any evidence that [he] knew that Walker planned to kill 

Williams in advance of it happening.” Johnson Br. 24, 30-31. 
3

Upon returning to the area together later that evening, 

Brown saw Johnson, Walker, and Williams arguing in the 

Midnight Special bar.3 After being thrown out of the bar, the 

three men proceeded in a single-file line down the street, with 

Walker in front, Williams in the middle, and Johnson in the 

rear. Walker was wearing a long, leather overcoat and 

noticeably walking like he had an object (presumably a 

shotgun) hidden in his overcoat. When they arrived at an 

alley between the buildings at 1420 and 1422 Market Street, 

Johnson stood outside the entrance while Walker, followed by 

Williams, entered the alley. There was testimony from both 

Brown and Ramsey that Williams did not willingly enter the 

alley. Upon entering the alley, Walker shot and killed 

Williams with a shotgun. 

The aftermath of the crime is also consistent with 

Johnson‟s guilty mind. Aaron Dews testified that he saw two 

silhouettes running up the driveway from the direction of the 

alley. Although he could not make out the silhouettes‟ 

gender, from other evidence it flows more likely than not that 

 

Quite to the contrary, the most logical inference from 

Walker‟s statement (in Johnson‟s presence) that he planned to 

kill Williams is that Johnson knew very well that Walker had 

such intentions.

3 The majority posits that because Brown could not hear what 

was being said during the argument, no inferences may be 

drawn therefrom. I disagree. Certainly one may perceive 

individuals engaged in an argument without knowing the 

actual content of the argument.
4

the running silhouettes were indeed Johnson and Walker. 

Brown testified that she passed the alley and upon hearing the 

gun shot ran up Market Street and cut through another alley to 

get to Regina Street. Although this is the general direction 

that the two silhouettes were running, Brown ran through a 

different alley. Since Williams had been killed and Brown 

had run through a different alley, a logical inference existed 

that Johnson and Walker were the “silhouettes” that Dews 

saw fleeing up the driveway between the buildings at 1420 

and 1422 Market Street. Johnson also fled from Detective 

Duffin the very next afternoon. Finally, there was testimony 

from Doubs that Johnson‟s friend attempted to bribe her into 

giving false alibi information to Duffin on Johnson‟s behalf. 

All of this post-offense conduct further supports the 

reasonableness of the state court‟s ultimate determination. 

See Commonwealth v. Harvey, 526 A.2d 330, 334 (Pa. 1987) 

(“It is a well-settled rule of law that if a person has reason to 

know he is wanted in connection with a crime, and proceeds 

to flee or conceal himself from the law enforcement 

authorities, such evasive conduct is evidence of guilt and may 

form a basis, in connection with other proof, from which guilt 

may be inferred.”); Commonwealth v. Tinsley, 350 A.2d 791, 

792 (Pa. 1976) (same).

Johnson has never argued that Walker lacked a 

specific and premeditated intent to kill Williams. The only 

issue – whether phrased in terms of specific intent to commit 

first-degree murder or specific intent to aid in the commission 

of first-degree murder – is Johnson‟s state of mind at the time 

of the homicide. Piecing together the constituent parts of the 

Commonwealth‟s evidence, I believe that the state court was 

not unreasonable in finding that a rational jury could properly 

infer Johnson‟s specific intent to aid Walker in the murder. 
5

The majority is correct that although each strand of 

evidence need not support an inference of guilt by itself, we 

must consider each strand of evidence as if woven or 

entwined “to the whole and determine if the totality of the 

evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, establishes criminal intent beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” Majority Op. 27. I believe, however, that 

the majority has improperly isolated certain strands of 

circumstantial evidence to reach its conclusion. 

For instance, the majority holds that the mere fact that 

“Johnson walked with Walker and the victim to an alley” has 

no evidentiary value. Majority Op. 22. However, the 

testimony was that Walker, Williams, and Johnson proceeded 

in a single-file line down the street, with Walker in front 

(noticeably walking with an object concealed in his overcoat), 

Williams in the middle, and Johnson in the back. This, of 

course, occurred within hours of Johnson witnessing 

Williams beating Walker, resulting in embarrassment and 

humiliation to Walker, and Walker repeatedly stating that he 

intended to kill Williams. The single-file line brings to mind 

an “execution-style” killing, and undercuts any inference that 

the three might have been proceeding down the alley to do a 

drug deal or for some other late-night jaunt. Moreover, the 

manner in which they proceeded down the street 

demonstrates, more likely than not, that Johnson knew what 

was coming and was aiding Walker in escorting him and the 

victim to the place of execution, especially given the fact that 

the shooting occurred immediately upon entering the alley. 

Finally, the coercive nature of the single-file line is 

corroborated by Brian Ramsey‟s testimony that Williams was 

“forced” in the alley. Johnson‟s participation in the escorting 

helps demonstrate concert between him and Walker. I 
6

believe the nature of the procession itself, in conjunction with 

other evidence, is helpful in demonstrating Johnson‟s specific 

intent. 

In addition, the majority discounts as speculation any 

inference that Johnson‟s presence at the entrance to the alley 

where Walker killed Williams demonstrated Johnson‟s intent. 

Taken in isolation, Johnson‟s mere presence at the scene of a 

crime cannot be a basis for accomplice liability. See

Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228, 1238 (Pa. 2004). 

But in conjunction with other evidence, it was certainly 

reasonable for the state court to find that Johnson‟s presence 

outside the alley – taken together with the evidence of his 

prior knowledge of Walker‟s intent to kill Williams, the 

evidence that he had just participated in an argument with 

Williams, and the single-file procession to the alley – could 

be viewed by a rational juror as standing guard outside the 

alley while Walker consummated the murder.4 See

 

4Whether there was a need for a lookout, or whether 

Johnson‟s effectiveness as one was only slight, however, is 

not the point. See Murphy, 844 A.2d at 1234 (“There must be 

some additional evidence that the defendant intended to aid in 

the commission of the underlying crime, and then did or 

attempted to do so. With regard to the amount of aid, it need 

not be substantial so long as it was offered to the principal to 

assist him in committing or attempting to commit the 

crime.”). In any event, Brown‟s testimony strongly implies 

that Johnson was standing outside of the alley not by 

happenstance, but with a specific purpose. See Joint 

Appendix (“JA”) 200, 203 (“But one thing for sure, they 

walked him in that alley. . . . All I know is who walked him 

in that alley and who stood in front of the alley.”). She also 
7

Commonwealth v. Ulatoski, 371 A.2d 186, 190 (Pa. 1977) 

(“[E]vidence concerning the previous relations between a 

defendant and a homicide victim is relevant and admissible 

for the purpose of proving ill will, motive, or malice. 

Evidence of prior occurrences in which the accused 

threatened, assaulted, or quarreled with the decedent may be 

admissible for this purpose.” (footnote omitted)). I submit 

that it was reasonable to conclude that Walker‟s stance 

outside the alley demonstrated both his specific intent to have 

Williams killed and his attempt to aid Walker in doing so. 

* * * *

When considered in its totality, the evidence supports 

the inference that Johnson was assisting Walker in escorting 

Williams to the alley to be killed: a single-file procession, 

immediately followed by Johnson taking a position just 

outside the alley, immediately followed by the murder with a 

shotgun, immediately followed by Johnson and Walker 

fleeing from the scene. Together with the evidence 

concerning the trio‟s interactions outside the KFC and in the 

Midnight Special bar, I believe the ultimate inference – that 

Johnson acted with a specific intent to facilitate a first-degree 

murder – flows logically and reasonably from the evidence. 

Accordingly, I would hold that the state courts‟ rejection of 

 

stated that she was scared that “they‟d kill me too,” further 

implying that Johnson and Walker were acting collectively. 

JA 168 (emphasis added). Given the other evidence, it seems 

perfectly reasonable for one to conclude more likely than not 

that Johnson‟s not-so-fortuitous stance outside the alley was 

an overt attempt to aid in the crime.
8

Johnson‟s sufficiency of the evidence claim was not contrary 

to, or an unreasonable application of, Jackson.

5

For the above reasons, I respectfully dissent, and 

would affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

 

5

Johnson did not advance separate arguments with regarding 

his criminal conspiracy conviction, although he did mention 

there was a lack of evidence “upon which a rational jury 

could have found that he possessed specific intent to kill, as 

required for the homicide or criminal conspiracy 

convictions.” See Johnson Br. 4. Perhaps this was because 

“the „intent‟ element required to be proven by the 

Commonwealth is the same for accomplice liability as for 

conspiracy.” Commonwealth v. Stein, 585 A.2d 1048, 1050 

n.6 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). As a result, the above discussion 

applies equally to Johnson‟s murder and conspiracy 

convictions.