Title: Commonwealth v. Brown
Citation: 417 A.2d 181, 490 Pa. 560
Docket Number: s
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: July 3, 1980

490 Pa. 560 (1980) 417 A.2d 181 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Daniel BROWN, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted April 21, 1980. Decided July 3, 1980. *561 *562 *563 John Paul Curran, Philadelphia, for appellant. Robert B. Lawler, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Division, Victor M. Fortuno, Philadelphia, for appellee. Before EAGEN, C.J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY and KAUFFMAN, JJ. KAUFFMAN, Justice. After a 1977 jury trial in Philadelphia, appellant, Daniel Brown, was convicted of murder of the third degree and *564 possession of an instrument of crime. Appellant's post-verdict motions were denied, and he filed this appeal.[1] We affirm. The trial evidence discloses that on the evening of July 8, 1977, appellant's sister, Trudy Brown, and a neighbor, Veronica Jackson, became involved in a violent argument, causing a crowd to gather in front of appellant's home. A policewoman arrived, and the fight was broken up with the help of neighbors. Ms. Brown was forcibly removed to her home, screaming. Within minutes Ms. Brown ran from the house brandishing a knife and stabbed Veronica Jackson's mother, Mrs. Rebecca Jackson, as she sat with friends on a stoop directly across the street from appellant's home. Once again, the police arrived, and Ms. Brown was again forcibly removed to her home where she continued screaming and "acting like a wild woman." Shortly thereafter, appellant told the police to leave since, in his view, the situation had calmed sufficiently. After the police departed, appellant's friend, James Hayes, arrived. Hayes warned that if the Jacksons' dispute with the Browns could not be settled, they would "shoot it out." Hayes then entered the appellant's home with the briefcase which he had been carrying. Immediately thereafter, appellant ran from the house and fired four shots from a .38 caliber revolver into the nearby crowd. Two of the bullets struck nineteen year old Sharon Sampson in the back and killed her. The Commonwealth sought to prove at trial that appellant told the police to leave so that he could carry out his plan to shoot the Jacksons and their neighbors as they stood on the stoop and street in front of his home. Two of the shots fired into the crowd struck the decedent instead. The defense contended that the crowd outside appellant's home had grown violent, and that after several visits, the police refused protection for the Brown family. Thus, appellant, *565 in an effort to protect his home and family, shot over the crowd and accidentally hit decedent. Appellant first contends that he was prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct. We disagree. Appellant argues that the Commonwealth presented materially different versions of the Sampson shooting at the suppression hearing and at trial. Since this claim was not raised at trial, it has been waived. Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974). Appellant next asserts that the prosecutor concealed the discovery of three spent .25 caliber casings near the scene of the shooting. He argues that this evidence would have corroborated his testimony that he shot over the crowd only after he had heard shots fired at his home. The record, however, reveals no such concealment. Quite to the contrary, the discovery of the cartridges was disclosed to appellant both before and during trial. Appellant further claims that he was prejudiced when the prosecutor briefly cross-examined his sister, Trudy Brown, regarding her use of drugs on the night of the shooting. A police officer testified that Ms. Brown appeared to have been drinking that night. Moreover, on cross-examination, Ms. Brown admitted that she had been drinking earlier in the evening. Several witnesses also testified that Ms. Brown's behavior that night had been extremely irrational and violent. During her direct trial testimony, Ms. Brown attempted to corroborate her brother's version of the shooting, describing in detail how the crowd "attacked" her home. The prosecutor sought to determine if Ms. Brown was inebriated or drugged when she made these observations. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that there was ample evidentiary support for the prosecutor's questions. See generally McCormick, Evidence at 49, § 22 (Cleary ed. 1972). *566 Appellant next claims that defense witness James Hayes was improperly confronted on cross-examination with a prior statement inconsistent with his trial testimony. During his direct examination, Hayes testified that on the night of the shooting, an unidentified individual pointed a gun at him while he was attempting to mediate the dispute outside the Brown home. The prosecutor cross-examined Hayes with the statement he made immediately after the shooting that he had seen no one with a gun. This use of a prior inconsistent statement was well within the bounds of appropriate cross-examination. Commonwealth v. Hamm, 474 Pa. 487, 378 A.2d 1219 (1977). Finally, appellant contends that in her closing argument the prosecutor improperly described the Sampson shooting as an "execution" and a "slaughter."[2] In evaluating similar misconduct claims, we have held that the allegedly improper comments must be read in their full context, including the defense closing. We may thus determine if the comments were made in fair response to defense argument. Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus, 462 Pa. 43, 337 A.2d 873 (1975); ABA Project on the Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function, § 5.8 (Approved Draft, March 1971) (commentary) ("[A] prosecutor may be justified in making a reply to an argument by defense counsel which may not have been proper if made without provocation.")[3] *567 The defense argued below that because the police would not permanently calm the "mob" outside appellant's home, he was compelled to shoot over the crowd to protect his family and property and that Ms. Sampson was hit accidentally. During his closing, defense counsel repeatedly expressed personal opinions, made arguments not supported by the evidence, and indulged in appeals to sympathy, in an effort to belittle the Commonwealth's contrary theory that the killing was intentional.[4] Such tactics are improper. ABA Project on the Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to the Defense Function, §§ 7.8, 7.9 (Approved Draft, March 1971). in response, the prosecutor discussed the evidence which revealed that appellant told the police to leave his home so he would be free to implement his plan to shoot those persons involved in the dispute. The discussion included the following comments: Significantly, unlike defense counsel, the prosecutor did not express her personal opinions, but posed two questions as part of her discussion of the evidence, which fully supported the inference drawn. Moreover, both counsel and the trial court repeatedly cautioned the jury that the arguments of counsel should not be considered as evidence. In these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the prosecutor's closing argument was improper or prejudicial. See Commonwealth v. Van Cliff, supra; Commonwealth v. Cronin, 464 Pa. 138, 346 A.2d 59 (1975)).[5] Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in allowing twenty peremptory challenges to each side during jury selection. He notes that twenty challenges are allowed only in capital prosecutions and that seven challenges are permitted in noncapital trials. Act of October 7, 1976, P.L. 1089, No. 217, § 1,19 P.S. § 811a. The murder trial below began six days after the date of our decision in Commonwealth *569 v. Moody, 476 Pa. 223, 382 A.2d 442 (1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 914, 98 S. Ct. 3143, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1160 (1978), wherein we invalidated the death penalty then in effect. Thus, the appellant argues that only seven peremptory challenges should have been allowed because murder was not a capital offense at the time of the trial. We disagree. In its opinion, the trial court explains that "in the ensuing confusion over the consequences of the Supreme Court's action in . . . [Moody], it appeared to this Court that allowing too many rather than too few peremptory challenges was the course of action better designed to protect defendant's rights." (Trial court opinion at 7)[6] In the circumstances of this case, the trial court's cautious ruling was not an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Torres, 467 Pa. 39, 354 A.2d 539 (1976). The appellant, who is black, further alleges that the prosecutor systematically excluded black persons from the jury, noting that all of the sixteen people peremptorily excluded by the prosecution were black. In his brief, counsel for appellant adds his personal observation that in the two years prior to the trial, he represented black defendants in five Philadelphia murder trials during which the prosecution used peremptory challenges in a discriminatory fashion.[7] The record here shows that one black person did in fact serve on the jury. In Commonwealth v. Martin, 461 Pa. 289, 336 A.2d 290 (1975), we discussed the issue of racial discrimination in jury selection and adopted the approach taken by the United States Supreme Court in Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 222, 85 S. Ct. 824, 837, 13 L. Ed. 2d 759, 773-74 (1965): (Emphasis in original.) Commonwealth v. Martin, supra, 461 Pa. at 296-97, 336 A.2d at 294. We conclude that appellant has not met his "initial burden of demonstrating a prima facie case of discrimination." Id., 461 Pa. at 296, 336 A.2d at 293. Finally, appellant contends that the trial court improperly denied his requested charges on self defense and burden of proof. Since objections on these points were not among those raised by appellant following the trial court's charge, they have been waived. Pa.R.Crim.P. 1119(b); Commonwealth v. Martinez, 475 Pa. 331, 337, 380 A.2d 747, 750 (1977) (plurality). Judgments of sentence affirmed. *571 ROBERTS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. NIX, J., filed a dissenting opinion. NIX, Justice, dissenting. The record in this case establishes that sixteen prospective jurors were excluded because of their race. The record also shows that the Commonwealth only exercised sixteen peremptory challenges. Nevertheless, the majority has seen fit to hold "that appellant has not met his `initial burden of demonstrating a prima facie case of discrimination.'" See maj. opinion page 186, 187. This conclusion is based on the fact that one person of the racial group involved did in fact serve on the jury and further upon a reliance of the test initially set forth in Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S. Ct. 824, 13 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1965), and adopted in this jurisdiction in Commonwealth v. Martin, 461 Pa. 289, 336 A.2d 290 (1975). Writing in dissent in Martin, I expressed my disagreement with adoption of the Swain rule for this jurisdiction as follows: The fact that this problem has repeated itself in this and other cases since our pronouncement in Martin bears further evidence of the ineffectiveness of the Swain test in preserving the fundamental principles of fair trial in this jurisdiction. *574 I again urge the majority of this Court to reconsider its position, and to frame a test that is more realistic and that will be more effective in ferreting out and rejecting this invidious type of racism which should have no place in a court proceeding in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. ROBERTS, Justice, dissenting. In the course of closing argument, the prosecutor asked the jury: "Is it a system of vigilante self-style execution that we are dealing with here? . . . Now, is this an attempt to protect oneself, or is this a slaughter?" Remarkably, the majority concludes that such argument is neither improper nor prejudicial. I must dissent. The responsibilities of a prosecutor extend beyond the role of advocate. "The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict." ABA Standards Relating to The Prosecution Function § 1.1(c) (Approved Draft, 1971); see Code of Professional Responsibility EC 7-13. "Although the prosecutor operates within the advocacy system, it is fundamental that his obligation is to protect the innocent as well as to convict the guilty, to guard the rights of the accused as well as to enforce the rights of the public." ABA Standards Relating to The Prosecution Function, supra, Commentary to § 1.1. This special responsibility arises from three considerations: Code of Professional Responsibility EC 7-13. As the United States Supreme Court explained, the prosecutor Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S. Ct. 629, 633, 79 L. Ed. 1314 (1935). A prosecutor's closing argument is of particular concern because of the possibility that the jury will give it "special weight" in light of the prosecutor's prestige and superior factfinding facilities. See ABA Standards Relating to The Prosecution Function, supra, Commentary to § 5.8. Berger v. United States, supra at 88, 55 S. Ct. at 633. Consequently, the ABA has set forth express and specific limitations on prosecutorial argument to the jury: ABA Standard Relating to The Prosecution Function, supra, § 5.8. In applying these limitations, this Court has held that a prosecuting attorney may not indulge in personal assertions of guilt of the accused either by direct statement or indirectly by figure of speech. See Commonwealth v. Van Cliff, 483 Pa. 576, 586, 397 A.2d 1173, 1178 (1979); Commonwealth v. Cronin, 464 Pa. 138, 143, 346 A.2d 59, 62 (1975). Nor may a prosecutor unfairly characterize or stigmatize the accused. See Commonwealth v. Gilman, 470 Pa. 179, 368 A.2d 253 (1977) (prosecutor called defendant "cold-blooded killer" and characterized him as "sly, calculating and deceiving"); Commonwealth v. Lipscomb, 455 Pa. 525, 317 A.2d 205 (1974) (prosecutor called defendant a "hoodlum" and "Criminal"); Commonwealth v. Capalla, 322 Pa. 200, 185 A. 203 (1936) (prosecutor called defendant a "cold-blooded killer"). Surely the prosecutor's reference in this case to "vigilante self-style execution" and "slaughter" with respect to appellant is as unduly inflammatory and prejudicial to appellant as the prosecutorial comments in the cases noted above. The majority attempts to justify these references by speaking of them as mere "questions," bereft of the prosecutor's personal opinion. Such justification by the majority is disingenuous. It is perfectly clear that these "questions" were rhetorical attempts by the prosecutor to characterize appellant in a highly inflammatory and impassioned fashion. The majority also suggests that the prosecutor's comments are to be excused as a "fair response" to what the majority terms as defense counsel's intemperate closing argument. Unlike the majority, I am unwilling to permit the prosecution *577 to resort to any self-help remedies. Rather we must rely, as we have always done, upon the trial judge to ensure a fair trial. The ABA Standards Relating to The Function of the Trial judge (Approved Draft, 1972) provide in relevant part that the "trial judge has the responsibility for safeguarding both the rights of the accused and the interests of the public in the administration of criminal justice. . . The trial judge should require that every proceeding before him be conducted with unhurried and quiet dignity . . ." § 1.1(a) &amp; (b). It is manifest that the trial judge not allow the adversary process to ABA Standard Relating to The Function of the Trial Judge, supra, Comment to § 1.1. Thus it is clear that the only permissible remedy available to the prosecutor for defense counsel's closing remarks was to request judicial correction. The doctrine of "fair response" is a secondary means of redress, intended only to provide the prosecutor an opportunity to respond to defense counsel's injection of extraneous issues. See ABA Standards Relating to The Prosecution Function, supra, Comment to § 5.8(d); accord ABA Standards Relating to The Trial Judge Function § 5.10 (final argument to the jury). This doctrine, however, does not and cannot give prosecutors license to engage in misconduct. As the ABA Standards' discussion of "fair response" makes clear, the "better solution to this problem lies in having advocates adequately instructed as to the limits of proper argument and trial judges willing to enforce fair rules as to *578 such limits." Id. Prosecutorial misconduct thus cannot be excused here. Accordingly, I would grant appellant a new trial. [1] Jurisdiction is vested in this Court by the Judicial Code, Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, No. 142, § 2, as amended, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 722(1) (Pamph. 1979). [2] Appellant fails to specify where in the record the words "slaughter" and "execution" appear. This is a serious oversight since we can determine if prosecutorial comments are prejudicial only by reviewing them in context. See Commonwealth v. Van Cliff, 483 Pa. 576, 397 A.2d 1173 (1979). [3] A substantial number of jurisdictions have adopted rules making it permissible for a prosecutor to respond in kind to an improper defense closing. People v. McDaniel, 16 Cal. 3d 156, 127 Cal. Rptr. 467, 545 P.2d 843 (1976); People v. Stock, 56 Ill. 2d 461, 309 N.E.2d 19 (1974); Commonwealth v. MacDonald, 368 Mass. 395, 333 N.E.2d 189 (1975); State v. Bowden, 113 R.I. 649, 324 A.2d 631 (1974); cert. denied sub nom. Picard v. Rhode Island, 419 U.S. 1109, 95 S. Ct. 782, 42 L. Ed. 2d 805 (1975); State v. Cydzick, 60 Wisc.2d 683, 211 N.W.2d 421 (1973); State v. Yancey, 32 Wisc.2d 104, 145 N.W.2d 145 (1966); United States v. Esposito, 523 F.2d 242 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied 425 U.S. 916, 96 S. Ct. 1517, 47 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1975); United States v. Lewis, 423 F.2d 457 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 905, 91 S. Ct. 146, 27 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1970); United States v. Johnson, 527 F.2d 1381 (D.C.Cir. 1976). [4] For instance, defense counsel labelled as "most absurd" and "just ridiculous," the critical testimony of a Commonwealth eyewitness that appellant's attack was unprovoked. At several points in his closing, defense counsel, without evidentiary support, assailed the "cunningness" of the prosecutor in concealing evidence that showed appellant acted in self-defense. In addition, defense counsel improperly urged the jury, when evaluating appellant's testimony, to put themselves in appellant's place. Compare e.g., Commonwealth v. Cherry, 474 Pa. 295, 378 A.2d 800 (1977) (improper for the prosecutor to ask the jury to put themselves in the victim's place when evaluating her testimony). [5] Appellant also alleges that the Commonwealth did not comply with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963) because it "did not provide the defense with exculpatory materials until well into the trial of the case." (Appellant's brief at 10). Appellant fails to identify any such "exculpatory material," however. Absent such a specific allegation, we will not consider the claim. [6] Indeed, the validity of the death penalty remained uncertain until July 3, 1978, when the United States Supreme Court denied the Commonwealth's petition for certiorari. Pennsylvania v. Moody, 438 U.S. 914, 98 S. Ct. 3143, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1160 (1978). [7] Counsel has not supplied this Court with the docket numbers or any other citation to the cases referred to, but has provided only the surnames of the defendants.