Opinion ID: 2292857
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Paulley.

Text: Paulley's directed verdict argument involves a somewhat confusing amalgam of what he believes to be insufficient evidence, improper remarks by the Commonwealth, and improper jury instructions. As we understand it, Paulley contends there was insufficient evidence to convict him of intentional murder such that the trial court erred by giving the jury a combination instruction it could have used to find Paulley guilty of either intentional or wanton murder. [40] Compounding the error, in Paulley's view, was the Commonwealth arguing to the jury that not all of its members had to agree Paulley was guilty of intentional murder in order for them to convict Paulley of murder. We reject all of Paulley's arguments. First, there was sufficient evidence presented for a reasonable juror to convict Paulley of intentional murder. The Commonwealth presented evidence showing that Paulley and his cohorts including Gunnwent to Stone's home to rob Stone or exact revenge on Stone in furtherance of Stone's ongoing feud with Eric Ward. Paulley and Gunn went onto Stone's front porch. Paulley handed Gunn the loaded shotgun Gunn used to shoot Brown through Stone's door, knowing that someone else was on the other side of the door. The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable juror to find Paulley guilty of intentional murder. So the trial court did not err by denying a directed verdict as to intentional murder or by instructing the jury it could find Paulley guilty of intentional murder. Since Paulley does not argue he was entitled to a directed verdict on a charge of wanton murder and there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for intentional murder, it was not inherently improper for the trial court to instruct the jury on both theories. [41] Finally, we reject Paulley's argument for relief based upon the Commonwealth's statements to the effect that the jurors did not have to all agree on whether Paulley was guilty of wanton or intentional murder. We have recently re-emphasized that a jury need not unanimously agree on a specific theory of guilt, provided all theories of guilt available to the jury are supported by sufficient evidence. [42] So the prosecutor did not misstate the law by opining that although all twelve jurors had to believe Gunn and Paulley committed murder, they did not have to take the same road or path to reach that conclusion. [43]