Opinion ID: 2056298
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Commonwealth's Presentation of Rebuttal Evidence

Text: Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to present during the penalty phase evidence of a comment made by Appellant at the conclusion of the guilt phase trial. Specifically, after the guilt phase of the trial concluded and the jury was excused for the day, the attorneys remained in the courtroom to discuss procedures for the upcoming penalty phase. Appellant requested that he be excused from the courtroom, and the trial court granted the request. As Appellant waited for the sheriff to escort him out, he stated I ain't done yet, to which someone from the decedent's family said You got what you deserved. N.T. Trial, 5/6/05, at 175, N.T. Trial, 5/10/05, at 99. Appellant then responded Still breathing, bitch. That's why he dead. Id. [14] Appellant's statement was recorded by the court stenographer, although the statement by the decedent's family member was not. Subsequently, the prosecutor advised the court and the defense that he intended to introduce Appellant's comment into evidence at the penalty phase for rebuttal purposes. The prosecutor argued that the statement was admissible on rebuttal because the defense is alleging a mitigating factor about the circumstances of the offense, the record of the defendant, and the character of the defendant and we've already gone through family members about his troubled childhood and the sister and other folks saying we're sorry for what happened to the decedent's family, and that's to show to the jury he was showing remorse and his statement as he was leaving the courtroom is something I think should be admissible on rebuttal. N.T. Trial, 5/10/05, at 20. Appellant objected, but the court ultimately ruled that the statement was admissible. Accordingly, at the conclusion of the penalty phase, the prosecutor introduced the following rebuttal evidence by stipulation: Prosecutor: Your Honor, last Friday after the jury returned the verdict and left the courtroom while counsel were discussing with the Court in the presence of the defendants aggravating and mitigating circumstances, Mr. Bond indicated  Appellant's Counsel: Through his attorney. Prosecutor: Through his attorney, you're correct. Mr. Bond indicated that he wished to leave the courtroom and stated, I ain't done yet, to which someone in the decedent's family said, You got what you deserved, to which the defendant Mr. Bond said, I'm still breathing, bitch, that's why he dead. Id. at 98-99. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Appellant's statement for two reasons. First, Appellant argues [t]he most significant problem with allowing the comment to be admitted was that there was no context for it. Appellant's Brief at 34. Most notably, the identity of the decedent's family member with whom Appellant engaged in the verbal exchange is unclear from the record. As Appellant concedes, however, [t]he stipulation provided some agreed-upon setting for the comment, although the actual words said to Appellant by the decedent's family member were not transcribed. Id. In that Appellant stipulated to a description of the circumstances surrounding his statement, which was conveyed to the jury at the time his statement was introduced, he cannot now argue that the information provided to the jury was misleading. Furthermore, it is clear from the record that the prosecutor did no more than present the statement and the circumstances surrounding the statement as was agreed by the parties in the stipulation. Appellant further maintains the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Appellant's statement because commenting on the lack of remorse shown by a defendant is equivalent to commenting on the failure of the defendant to testify. Appellant's Brief at 34. In allowing Appellant's statement to be introduced, the trial court noted that, during the penalty phase, Appellant's sister, Asekia Barmont, testified that she had talked with Appellant about the killing of Grant, and that Appellant had expressed regret, N.T. 5/9/05, at 93-94, and that this evidence was introduced for purposes of establishing appellant's character under the catch-all mitigator. The trial court concluded that an appellant's lack of remorse is relevant to his character, and, thus, relevant to determination of the catch-all mitigator, and, therefore, the prosecutor was entitled to present rebuttal evidence on this issue. The trial court further determined that the prosecutor's comment in the instant case in no way suggested to the jury that Appellant had a duty to testify, and emphasized that it specifically instructed the jury that Appellant had an absolute right under the Constitution to remain silent, and that the jury should not draw any adverse inference from the fact that Appellant did not testify during the penalty phase. See N.T. Trial, 5/11/05, at 31. It is well settled that the admission or rejection of rebuttal evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Weiss, 565 Pa. 504, 519, 776 A.2d 958, 967 (2001). In the instant case, however, we recognize that Barmont's testimony regarding Appellant's remorse for his crimes, see N.T., 5/9/05, at 93-94, the subject of the prosecution's rebuttal evidence, was elicited in the first instance on cross-examination by the prosecutor. Nevertheless, in Commonwealth v. Harris, 550 Pa. 92, 703 A.2d 441 (1997), this Court approved the introduction during the penalty phase of a remark [15] similar to that made by Appellant herein, where the appellant had introduced evidence that he was a good person. See id. at 112, 703 A.2d at 451 (reasoning that the remark served to rebut Appellant's character evidence that he was a sweet and nice person rather than to establish lack of remorse). As Appellant likewise adduced substantial testimony in furtherance of establishing his good character, the Commonwealth was entitled to use Appellant's statement to the victim's family to rebut that evidence. Accordingly, we hold that Appellant is not entitled to relief on this claim.