Opinion ID: 1516216
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Anthony Troy Powell

Text: Next, appellant claims that the trial court sought to discredit defense witness Anthony Powell, who claimed that he was with Ms. Beverly when the gunfight began a few blocks from where William Lloyd was murdered. Appellant argues that the trial court's partiality was shown in his questioning of Mr. Powell. Appellant cites the following passages: THE COURT: Was there a reason why you wanted to say something about [Ms. Beverly], why you were trying to get some thought across to the jury? MR. POWELL: No, nothing like that. THE COURT: Do you have some reason why you wanted to say something about [Ms. Beverly's] conduct? MR. POWELL: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: You just blurted it out because you wanted to blurt it out. THE WITNESS: Yeah, I guess you could say that. THE COURT: Alright, go ahead. N.T. 7/12/1995 (a.m.) at 12-13. Also, appellant cites: PROSECUTOR: Sir, sir, you were asked did you see [Ms. Beverly at the murder scene]. MR. POWELL: Yes. PROSECUTOR: And you said no. THE COURT: Wait a minute. You say she probably wasn't there because, otherwise, they would have taken her down to homicide like they took you down. MR. POWELL: They sure did. They sure pickedÔÇö. THE COURT: Maybe you looked suspicious and she didn't. There are a lot of reasons why they would have taken you and not her; is that right? MR. POWELL: We were all together. Id. at 17-18. While a trial judge should normally leave questioning of witnesses to counsel, justice may require that a trial judge ask questions when absurd, ambiguous, or frivolous testimony is given or testimony is in need of further elucidation. See Commonwealth v. Roldan, 524 Pa. 366, 572 A.2d 1214, 1215 (1990) (citing Commonwealth v. Myma, 278 Pa. 505, 123 A. 486, 487 (1924)). To properly evaluate the questioning conducted by the trial court, we must consider it in context. The Commonwealth argues that the trial court's questions were aimed to highlight that Mr. Powell's assertions about Ms. Beverly's absence at the scene of the murder was not based on first-hand knowledge. Mr. Powell was asked whether he was on drugs at the time of the murder and he responded that Ms. Beverly was on drugs as well. N.T. 7/12/1995 (p.m.) at 9-10. On cross-examination, the prosecutor attempted several times to question Mr. Powell about his motives for interjecting his opinion on Ms. Beverly's sobriety, but Mr. Powell once answered [b]ecause she was high and then responded [t]hat was in my mind. Id. at 12. Given this context, respecting the first set of questioning appellant cites, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in seeking a more pointed explanation for Mr. Powell. As to the trial court's questioning of Mr. Powell concerning his recollection that Ms. Beverly was not at the murder scene, the court's intervention was again justified in context. The prosecutor had repeatedly asked how Mr. Powell knew Ms. Beverly was not at the murder scene, resulting in an argumentative cross-examination. Id. at 16-17. The trial court's intervention ended this line of unproductive questioning, but also made it clear to the jury that the police did not simply arrest everyone at the scene. Moreover, appellant's accusations that the trial court wanted to help the prosecution are belied by the court's admonishments of the prosecutor. Just a few lines before the latter questioning that appellant cites, the trial court twice instructed the prosecutor to stop interrupting Mr. Powell with questions before he had finished speaking. Id. at 16 & 17. This record squarely belies appellant's hindsight claim of partiality. Appellant additionally accuses the trial judge of directly questioning Mr. Powell's credibility: THE COURT: This in no way indicates anything on my part as to your credibility. I'm just a judge. I'm in no way expressing an opinion. Did you take anything this morning that makes you a little light-headed? MR. POWELL: No. That's just me. THE COURT: That's the way you always are. I'm not being derogatory; I wanted to know so I know whether we should go on or have a recess or what. Id. at 20. Appellant speculates the trial court's above disclaimer and question was calculated to diminish Mr. Powell's testimony, which was harmful because he was the only defense witness offered to discredit the lone eyewitness to the murder, Ms. Beverly. The Commonwealth disputes appellant's claim. When the trial court asked if Mr. Powell had taken anything that would make him light-headed, the Commonwealth asserts the court's question was a logical response to Mr. Powell's odd demeanor and responses on the witness stand. The Commonwealth also notes that the court prefaced his question to Mr. Powell by stating that he was not commenting on Mr. Powell's credibility. Even laying aside the fact that the cold record does not reveal demeanor, the record shows that Mr. Powell's testimony had been peculiar. Mr. Powell asserted that Ms. Beverly had been totally lost in space at the scene of the murder and, just prior to the question at issue, his answer was odd and rambling. For instance, Mr. Powell's prior uninterrupted answer included the following statements: giving me feedback, feedback, crazy questions. That does not make no sense to me, that you asking me to answer crazy questions; Think about it. Duh. Think about it; Let me know who would go back, please. Please somebody let me know. Would anybody here go back, please raise your hand, please let me know; and Does it sound logical? Am I right or am I wrong? Does it sound logical? Id. at 19-20. Considering Mr. Powell's lengthy and strange response and the fact that counsel, who was present and could observe the demeanor and assess whether the trial court was acting out of partiality, this hindsight claim fails. We see no evidence of judicial impropriety.