Court Opinion

ID: 9386206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-11 17:08:44.970141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:45.034632
License: Public Domain

J-A01041-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    MALIK STEVENS                              :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 303 EDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 15, 2021
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-51-CR-0007289-2018

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., NICHOLS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                               FILED APRIL 11, 2023

        Malik Stevens appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, after a jury convicted him of

second-degree murder,1 robbery,2 firearms not to be carried without a

license,3 carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia,4 and possession of an

instrument of a crime (PIC).5 After review, we affirm.

____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(b).

2   Id. at § 3701.

3   Id. at § 6106.

4   Id. at § 6108.

5   Id. at § 907.
J-A01041-23

       Kiara Thompson, the fiancée of the victim in his matter, Vincent Ho

(decedent),6 testified that on February 27, 2018, she and the decedent were

driving to Breezes Café, when the decedent asked her to pull over near the

intersection of 52nd and Heston Street. See N.T. Jury Trial, 11/9/21, at 44.

Thereafter, two men7 wearing black clothing approached the vehicle and tried

to open the passenger side doors. Id. at 44, 49 (Thompson testifying “one

[of the men] was tugging on the [] front passenger[-side] doorknob and [the

other man was tugging] on the back passenger[-side] doorknob.”). One of

the men pointed his weapon into the car and the decedent said, “[N]o, not

her, not with her.” Id. at 44, 48.

       The decedent then, with his weapon on him, exited the vehicle. Id. at

48-49.    Thompson “immediately” heard “a few” gunshots.      Id. at 50-51

(Thompson testifying it was possible decedent fired his weapon); id. at 72

(Thompson testifying this happened within an “instant”). The decedent tried

to run, and Thompson followed him in their vehicle.    Id. at 46, 51. Once

Thompson caught up with the decedent, the decedent tried to open the

passenger side car door and then collapsed. Id. at 51. The decedent was

____________________________________________

6Thompson and the decedent had been in a relationship for two years and
have a child together. N.T. Jury Trial, 11/9/21, at 42.

7At the police station, Thompson described one of the men as African
American, about 5 feet 7 inches tall, with braided dark brown hair and a
mustache. She described the other man as 5 feet 5 inches tall. Id. at 61.

                                           -2-
J-A01041-23

“foaming out of the mouth” and non-responsive. Id. at 54-55. Thompson

called 911. Id. at 55.

     Allison Murtagh, Stevens’ ex-girlfriend, testified that during the time of

the incident, Stevens had been renting a room at 53rd and Jefferson Street

and that she had been staying with him. Id. at 97. On February 27, 2018,

at around 9:40 p.m., Stevens was in the hallway on the phone discussing his

plan to meet “with a female” and “do a robbery.” Id. at 100. Thereafter,

Stevens returned to the bedroom, put on his coat, took his dark grey revolver

from the futon, and said he was “going to meet with a girl outside.” Id. at

100-02, 113 (Murtagh testifying Stevens had been carrying revolver with him

regularly for last few months). Stevens returned approximately ten minutes

later and was “feeling his body,” asking Murtagh if he was bleeding or if he

had been shot. Id. at 102-04 (Murtagh testifying Stevens told her someone

had been shot).

     Murtagh testified that the next day, Stevens told his friend “Keese” that

“[Stevens] tried to rob somebody and ended up shooting him.” Id. at 107.

Stevens also told Keese that “[Stevens] and the female were involved in [what

happened on Heston Street] and [] they went to rob [someone and] it all went

left [because] the guy that they shot [had] a gun[. T]hat is when [Stevens]

pulled his gun out and started shooting at him.” Id. at 108. Later that day,

Murtagh saw an “RIP” Instagram post from the night before regarding the

decedent. Murtagh showed Stevens this post a few times. Stevens admitted

                                    -3-
J-A01041-23

to Murtagh that he had shot the man in the Instagram post on Heston Street

the previous night. Id. at 112.

       Murtagh also testified that, two days prior to the shooting of the

decedent, on February 25, 2018, she and Stevens were driving near 54th and

Euclid Streets. Id. at 114. Stevens asked her to pull over and he exited the

car holding his revolver.        Id. at 115.     Approximately ten minutes later,

Murtaugh heard four or five shots fired. Stevens returned two minutes later

and Murtagh drove him back to 53rd and Jefferson Streets.              Id. at 116.8

Stevens later confirmed he had fired these shots. Id. at 117.

       Officer Lawrence Flagler of the Philadelphia Police Department Firearms

Identification Unit compared bullets recovered from the body of the decedent

with bullets recovered from the area of 54th and Euclid Streets on February

25, 2017. Id., 11/10/21, at 74. Officer Flagler testified that, to a reasonable

degree of scientific certainty, the bullets had been fired from the same gun.

Id. at 94, 115.        Officer Flagler also testified that the .38/.357 caliber

ammunition recovered is more consistent with a revolver than a semi-

automatic weapon. Id. at 115.

       On July 7, 2018, Stevens was arrested and charged with murder and

related offenses. On November 15, 2021, he was convicted by a jury of the

prior-mentioned      offenses    and    sentenced,   on   the   same   day,   to   life

____________________________________________

8Murtaugh testified that she had been given immunity regarding the February
25, 2018 incident in exchange for testifying at Stevens’ jury trial. N.T. Jury
Trial, 11/9/21, at 120.

                                           -4-
J-A01041-23

imprisonment without the possibility of parole.9    On November 19, 2021,

Stevens fled a post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied. On January

21, 2022, Stevens filed a timely notice of appeal. Both Stevens and the trial

court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Stevens raises the following issues

for our review:

       1. Whether the trial court [erred] by not including a “[s]pecial
          [s]crutiny” jury instruction for witness []Murtagh[] who
          admitted at trial that she had previously lied under oath in
          court?

       2. Whether the trial court [erred] by admitting evidence that
          [Stevens] had shot the alleged murder weapon on an occasion
          separate from the crimes charged?

       3. Whether the evidence was insufficient to convict [Stevens] of
          second-degree murder because the Commonwealth failed to
          prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [Stevens] was identified
          as the assailant?

       4. Whether the evidence was insufficient to convict [Stevens] of
          robbery because the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a
          reasonable doubt that the motive for the shooting was a
          robbery?

       5. Whether the evidence was insufficient to convict [Stevens] of
          [PIC] and [of] carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia []
          because the Commonwealth failed to prove that [Stevens] had
          used a firearm in the commission of a crime or had carried a
          firearm in public in Philadelphia?

Appellant’s Brief, at VIII.

____________________________________________

9  Stevens’ robbery conviction merged with the second-degree murder
conviction for purposes of sentencing. No further penalty was imposed
regarding the Uniform Firearms Act convictions. N.T. Sentencing, 11/15/21,
at 9-10.

                                           -5-
J-A01041-23

       Stevens first contends that the trial court erred in denying his request

for a “special scrutiny” jury instruction.10 Appellant’s Brief, at 8. By way of

background, Murtagh admitted that she had previously pled guilty to a gun

possession charge despite the fact that the gun had belonged to Stevens.

Stevens argues that because Murtagh was the Commonwealth’s “star

witness,” her credibility was directly at issue and the special scrutiny charge

may have been sufficient to create reasonable doubt of his guilt in the jury’s

mind. Id. at 11. Additionally, Stevens cites to Commonwealth v. Rouse,

237 A.3d 483 (Pa. Super. 2020) (Table), for the proposition that the trial

court’s decision to forego the special scrutiny instruction because Murtagh did

not admit to perjury at a “related trial” is erroneous. Id. at 10. Stevens is

afforded no relief.

       Our standard of review in regard to a trial court’s decision on jury

instructions is well-settled:

       Our standard of review when considering the denial of jury
       instructions is one of deference—an appellate court will reverse a
       court’s decision only when it abused its discretion or committed
       an error of law. Our key inquiry is whether the instruction on a
       particular issue adequately, accurately and clearly presents the
       law to the jury, and is sufficient to guide the jury in its
       deliberations.

____________________________________________

10 “You should examine closely and carefully and receive with caution the
testimony of [name of witness] [any witness] if you find that he or she []
[committed perjury at another trial].” See Pennsylvania Suggested Standard
Criminal Jury Instructions § 4.06.

                                           -6-
J-A01041-23

Commonwealth v. Cannavo, 199 A.3d 1282, 1286 (Pa. Super. 2018)

(citations and quotations omitted). Additionally, “a refusal to give a requested

jury charge does not require reversal unless the [defendant] was prejudiced

by that refusal.” Commonwealth v. Baker, 963 A.2d 495, 507 (Pa. Super.

2005).

      Pursuant to the subcommittee note to Pa. SSJI (Crim) 4.06, “a ‘careful

scrutiny’ charge is proper when a witness testifies who admits, although he or

she has not been convicted for, perjuring himself or herself at a related trial.”

However, it goes on to state that “the [Superior Court] did not make it clear

whether the special caution was mandatory or simply permissible.”

Id., citing Commonwealth v. Levenson, 422 A.2d 1355 (Pa. Super. 1980)

(emphasis added).

      In Levenson, this Court rejected a defendant’s request for a new trial

due to the trial court’s failure to give the jury a special scrutiny charge. The

witness in Levenson, a co-conspirator, had admitted to lying at a previous

trial of an individual who was involved in the same string of burglaries as the

defendant. Id. at 1358. This Court determined that there was no reversible

error because the court reviewed, and directed the jury to consider, the

witness’s criminal history and character in its credibility determination and

provided a full and correct accomplice charge. Id. at 1261.

                                      -7-
J-A01041-23

       In Rouse, this Court also rejected a defendant’s request for a new trial

for failure to give the jury a special scrutiny charge.11 The witness in Rouse,

admitted that he committed perjury at another trial by pleading guilty to two

crimes he did not commit. Id. at 4.            This Court determined that there was

no reversible error where the trial court granted the defendant’s other jury

instruction requests, including an inconsistent statement instruction, a

conflicting testimony instruction, and a “false in one, false in all” instruction.

Id. at 5.

       Similar to Levenson and Rouse, here, the trial court provided the jury

with sufficient instructions to guide it in assessing witness credibility, including

whether the witness statements are inconsistent or unreasonable, whether

the witness is interested or disinterested, and whether the witness has

animosity toward the defendant. The trial court provided the jury with a false

in one, false in all instruction, and prompted the jurors to consider witness

credibility “in light of all the evidence” it heard. N.T. Jury Trial, 11/12/21,

115-22 (emphasis added). Indeed, here, the jury heard testimony regarding

Murtagh’s various drug and alcohol related convictions in Philadelphia and

Delaware Counties. N.T. Jury Trial, 11/9/21, at 152-192. The jury also heard

____________________________________________

11 Although we agree with Stevens that the Rouse Court did not consider
whether the perjury occurred at a “related trial,” his argument is, nonetheless,
meritless where the Court still found no error in the trial court’s refusal to
give the cautionary charge. We also note that the Rouse Court found this
issue waived for failure to object to the instructions as given but reviewed the
merits of the claim. Id. at 5-6.

                                           -8-
J-A01041-23

Murtagh testify that she had previously pled guilty to a gun possession charge

despite the gun belonging to Stevens. N.T. Jury Trial, 11/10/21, at 45.

      In light of foregoing, Stevens was not prejudiced by the trial court’s

refusal to include a special scrutiny jury charge and the jury instructions,

taken as a whole, were sufficient to guide the jury in its deliberations. Baker,

supra; Cannavo, supra.

      Next, Steven claims that the trial court erred by admitting evidence that

Stevens fired the alleged murder weapon on an occasion separate from the

crimes charged. Specifically, he argues that this is propensity evidence, and

even if used for a proper purpose (i.e. to show identity), its probative value

outweighed its unfair prejudice.    Appellant’s Brief, at 13-14.    Stevens is

entitled to no relief.

      Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1) prohibits the use evidence of

“any other crime, wrong, or act [] to prove a person’s character in order to

show that on particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the

character.”   Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1). However, Rule 404(b)(2) allows evidence of

a crime, wrong or act to be admissible for the purpose of “proving motive,

opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of

mistake or accident. In a criminal case this evidence is admissible only if the

probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.”

Pa.R.E.P. 404(b)(2) (emphasis added). See Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928

A.2d 1025, 1037-38 (Pa. Super. 2007) (significant additional probative value

as to identity of victim’s killer where witness testimony placed same gun in

                                     -9-
J-A01041-23

defendant’s hand during previous shooting). “[I]n order to use Rule 404(b)(2)

evidence to establish identity, the crimes must be so similar that logically the

same person has committed both acts.” See Commonwealth v. Green, 271

A.3d 393, 403-404 (Pa. Super. 2021) (previous shooting not similar for

identity purposes where incidents occurred in similar area and had similar

motive but occurred 14 months apart and ballistics tests revealed different

firearms had been used).

      Here, unlike in Green, ballistic evidence shows that the bullets found in

the instant shooting match the bullets recovered from the area of 54th and

Euclid Streets following an incident in which this weapon was fired only two

days prior to the instant shootings. N.T. Jury Trial, 11/10/21, at 94, 115.

Additionally, like in Cousar, Murtagh’s testimony places the same revolver in

Stevens’ possession prior to and immediately after the shooting on 54 th and

Euclid Streets as well as on Stevens’ bedroom futon the night of the instant

shooting. N.T. Jury Trial, 11/9/21, at 100, 115. Although the weapon itself

was not recovered, Detective Flagler’s testimony indicates that the caliber of

the bullets recovered is more consistent with that of a revolver. Id. at 108,

115, 118. Detective Flagler’s testimony is consistent with Murtagh’s testimony

that Stevens had been carrying around a revolver regularly for the last few

months. Id. at 113.

                                     - 10 -
J-A01041-23

        Further, the court provided the jury with a limiting instruction regarding

use of this evidence for identity purposes only.12 Id., 11/12/21, at 137-38;

Pa.R.E.    404(b)(2)     (cmt)   (cautionary       jury   instruction   may   ameliorate

prejudicial effect of proffered evidence); see Commonwealth v. Travaglia,

28 A.3d 868, 882 (Pa. 2011) (presumption jury adheres to limiting

instructions).

        Because this other act evidence adds significant probative value as to

identity of the shooter and the jury was given a limiting instruction, the trial

court did not err in allowing its admission. Cousar, supra.

____________________________________________

12   The limiting instruction provided,

        You have heard evidence tending to prove that [Stevens] was
        involved in another incident where a gun was shot. That incident
        is one for which he is not on trial, the incident that was two days
        prior. I am speaking of the testimony from [] Murtagh wherein
        she testified that she saw [Stevens] with the same gun two days
        prior and that she heard the weapon fired.

        This evidence is not before you to prove the truth of the matter
        asserted, that is, it is not before you for the purpose of proving
        that [Stevens] did or did not shoot off that gun two days earlier
        and that, rather, the evidence is before you for a very limited
        purpose. You are not here to judge what crime that was or what
        happened. It is here to prove identity of the perpetrator in this
        case.

        This evidence, in other words, the ballistics matched from case to
        case, if you find that, this evidence must not be considered by you
        in any way other than for the purpose I just stated. You must not
        regard this evidence as showing that [Stevens] is a person of bad
        character or criminal tendencies from which you might infer guilt.

N.T. Jury Trial, 11/12/21, at 137-38.

                                          - 11 -
J-A01041-23

      Stevens’ issues three, four, and five claim that the evidence is

insufficient to support his convictions. This Court’s review of sufficiency claims

is well-settled:

      [W]e evaluate the record in the light most favorable to the
      Commonwealth as verdict winner, giving it the benefit of all
      reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Evidence
      will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes
      each material element of the crime charged and the commission
      thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Any doubt
      about the defendant’s guilt is to be resolved by the fact-finder
      unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as matter of
      law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined
      circumstances. Additionally, the Commonwealth may sustain its
      burden solely by means of circumstantial evidence.

Commonwealth v. Lake, 281 A.3d 341, 435-45 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations

and quotations omitted).

      In Stevens’ third issue, he claims that evidence was insufficient to

identify him as the assailant in the shooting.        Appellant’s Brief, at 15.

Specifically, Stevens argues that Murtagh’s testimony is not credible and

evidence that bullets from the decedent matched another shooting that

Stevens may have been involved in does not conclusively tie him to this

incident. Id. at 17. Stevens is entitled to no relief.

      “Evidence of identity need not be positive and certain to sustain a

conviction.”   Commonwealth v. Orr, 21 A.3d 1189 (Pa. Super. 2011).

Additionally, as our Supreme Court has stated, “any indefiniteness and

uncertainty in the identification testimony goes to its weight. Direct evidence

of identity is, of course, not necessary and a defendant may be convicted

                                     - 12 -
J-A01041-23

solely on circumstantial evidence.” Commonwealth v. Hickman, 309 A.2d

564, 566 (Pa. 1973).

      Instantly, Murtagh testified that on the night of the murder, Stevens

took a phone call in the hallway during which he discussed committing a

robbery. Stevens subsequently left the apartment with his revolver. N.T. Jury

Trial, 11/9/21, at 100-04. Stevens returned approximately 10 minutes later,

feeling his body, and asking Murtagh if he had been shot. Id. The next day,

Stevens admitted to Murtagh that he killed the victim after Murtagh showed

him news of the victim’s death circulating on Instagram. Id. at 112.

      Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth

and granting it all reasonable inferences, the jury could reasonably infer

that Stevens was the assailant. Lake, supra; Hickman, supra.

      In Stevens’ fourth claim, he alleges that evidence is insufficient to prove

that the motive for this shooting was a robbery.       Appellant’s Brief, at 17.

Specifically, Stevens argues that this incident was not likely robbery because

the assailant did not also shoot Thompson and nothing was stolen. Id. at 18.

Stevens’ claim is belied by the record.

      The Crimes Code defines second-degree murder as “criminal homicide

[] committed while [the] defendant was engaged as a principal or an

accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.”     18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(b).      An

individual is involved in the “perpetration of a felony” when, in relevant part,

he engages, or is an accomplice, in the commission of, or an attempt to

                                     - 13 -
J-A01041-23

commit, or flight after committing, a robbery. Id. at § 2505(b); see also id.

at § 3701 (Robbery).

      Testimony expressly connects the shooting to a robbery.           Indeed,

Murtagh testified that she heard Stevens on the phone discussing a robbery.

Moreover, Stevens told his friend Keese that “[Stevens] tried to rob somebody

and ended up shooting him.” N.T. Jury Trial, 11/9/21, at 107. Stevens also

told Keese that “[Stevens] and the female were involved in [what happened

on Heston Street] and [] they went to rob [someone and] it all went left

[because] the guy that they shot [had] a gun[. T]hat is when [Stevens] pulled

his gun out and started shooting at him.” Id. at 108.

      Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth

and granting it all reasonable inferences, the jury could reasonably infer

that the robbery was a motive for the shooting. Lake, supra.

      Stevens’ fifth issue contends that evidence is insufficient to convict him

of carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia and PIC. Appellant’s Brief, at

19. Specifically, he argues that these charges are speculative because the

murder weapon was not recovered and there is no evidence that he left his

apartment building with a firearm.      Id. at 20.    Stevens’ arguments are

meritless.

      To successfully convict a defendant of possessing a firearm on the

public streets of Philadelphia, the Commonwealth must prove that a defendant

carried a firearm on his person on the public streets or public property of

Philadelphia. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a); id. at § 6108. Further, to prove a

                                    - 14 -
J-A01041-23

defendant possessed an instrument of a crime, the Commonwealth must

establish that a defendant possessed an instrument and had the intent to

employ it criminally. Id. at § 907(a).

      Here, Murtagh’s testimony that, following the phone call, Stevens

walked back into his apartment, took his revolver off the futon, and said he

was going to “meet with a girl outside,” id. at 100-02 (emphasis added),

places a firearm in Stevens’ hands on the public streets of Philadelphia.

Additionally, Thompson’s testimony that she saw the assailant point a gun into

her car and heard gun shots during the incident, id. at 44, both placed Stevens

outside of his apartment building with a firearm and demonstrates his intent

to use the firearm as a weapon.

      Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth

and granting it all reasonable inferences, the jury could reasonably infer that

Stevens carried a firearm on the public streets of Philadelphia and possessed

an instrument of a crime. Lake, supra.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/11/2023

                                    - 15 -