Court Opinion

ID: 9908406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 17:09:02.414951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:10.296023
License: Public Domain

J-S34002-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  DONALD EUGENE KING                           :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 409 WDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 9, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-02-CR-0013383-2017

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                         FILED: December 8, 2023

       Donald Eugene King appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in

the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, after a jury convicted him of

one count each of first-degree murder,1 robbery,2 conspiracy - robbery,3

carrying a firearm without a license,4 and criminal trespass,5 and two counts

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a).

2 Id. at § 3701(a)(1)(iii).

3 Id at § 903.

4 Id. at § 6106(a)(1).

5 Id. at § 3503(a)(1)(i).
J-S34002-23

of burglary—overnight accommodations and person present.6 After careful

consideration, we affirm.

       The trial court set forth the facts of the case as follows:

       [O]n August 6, 2017[,] at approximately 10:41 p.m., [King] and
       his accomplices went to a residence located at 208 Conestoga
       Road in Penn Hills, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania[,] to rob Kevin
       Trowery. [King] and his two accomplices were seen fleeing the
       back door of the residence and Penn Hills police officers began
       pursuit. [King] was arrested after a short pursuit. During the
       course of the investigation[,] detectives recovered [] surveillance
       videos of the entire incident. The videos d[epicted] the victim
       exit[] his residence and st[and] on the front porch. [King] and his
       two accomplices can be seen running toward the victim. The
       victim attempted to fight off the three actors. [King], with a
       firearm in his hand, shot the victim. The victim fell to the ground
       and the three actors, including [King], beat the victim while he
       was on the ground. [King] then fired two more shots into the
       victim’s body. The victim died as a result of multiple gunshot
       wounds. The three actors then entered the victim’s residence.
       They are observed seconds later exiting the residence and
       dragging the victim’s body into the residence.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/30/22, at 2.

       Following a joint trial with co-defendant-brother, DeVante King, King

was convicted of the aforementioned offenses.78 On March 9, 2022, the court

sentenced King to the mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment for
____________________________________________

6 Id. at §§ 3501(a)(1)(i) (overnight accommodations; person present; bodily

injury), (ii) (overnight accommodations; person present).

7 The court granted the defendant a judgment of acquittal on the charge of

fleeing and eluding.

8 The third actor, Dustin Taylor, entered a guilty plea in the instant matter and

agreed to testify against King and DeVante in exchange for the
Commonwealth agreeing not to seek a life without parole sentence. See N.T.
Jury Trial, 12/6/21, at 16.

                                           -2-
J-S34002-23

first-degree murder. The court imposed consecutive terms of 60-120 months’

imprisonment for robbery and one of the burglary offenses, 90-180 months’

imprisonment for conspiracy - robbery, and 3½-7 years’ imprisonment for the

firearm conviction. No further penalty was imposed on the remaining counts.

      King filed a timely notice of appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. King raises the

following issues for our review:

       (1)     The evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain
               King’s       convictions      for     [b]urglary-[o]vernight
               [a]ccommodations[;] [p]erson [p]resent at counts 3 and
               4[—]because it was quantitatively and/or qualitatively
               insufficient to support a finding that a person was present
               in the dwelling where the victim was located on his porch
               at the time of the event. Accord, In the Interest of J.B.,
               189 A.3d 390 (Pa. 2018).

       (2)     The trial court erred and/or abused its discretion in
               amending the standard jury instruction 4.01 regarding
               accomplice testimony as it misstates the circumspection
               the jury should properly have given to the testimony of
               Dustin Taylor.

Appellant’s Brief, at 6.

      King contends that because the victim was not inside his residence at

the time of the offense, the structure was not “occupied” for purposes of

proving the crime of burglary.

      The Crimes Code defines burglary, in relevant part, as:

      a) Offense defined. A person commits the offense of burglary if,
      with the intent to commit a crime therein, the person:

         (1)

                                       -3-
J-S34002-23

                 (i) enters a building or occupied structure, or
                 separately secured or occupied portion
                 thereof, that is adapted for overnight
                 accommodations in which at the time of the
                 offense any person is present and the person
                 commits, attempts[,] or threatens to commit a
                 bodily injury crime therein;

                 (ii) enters a building or occupied structure, or
                 separately secured or occupied portion
                 thereof that is adapted for overnight
                 accommodations in which at the time of the
                 offense any person is present[.]

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a)(1)(i), (ii) (emphasis added).       We review King’s

sufficiency of the evidence challenge under the following standard:

     The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
     is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light
     most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence
     to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond
     a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh
     the evidence and substitute our judgment for [that of] the fact-
     finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances
     established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every
     possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt
     may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak
     and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may
     be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth
     may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime
     beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial
     evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record
     must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be
     considered. Finally, the trier of fact[,] while passing upon the
     credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced,
     is free to believe all, part[,] or none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Callen, 198 A.3d 1149, 1167 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citations

and quotation marks omitted).

     In Commonwealth v. Jackson, 585 A.2d 533, 535 (Pa. Super. 1991),

the defendant had been convicted of burglary, among other offenses, after

                                    -4-
J-S34002-23

entering the front door of a residence while the owner was seated on the back

porch. On appeal, our Court held that a porch attached to a residence is part

of the “structure” for purposes of assessing an offense gravity score (OGS) to

the defendant’s burglary conviction. Because a burglary that carries an OGS

of 7 requires that the burglarized structure be “adapted for overnight

accommodation in which the time of the offense any person is present,” id.

at 354 (emphasis added), the Court’s holding in Jackson necessarily assumes

that the Commonwealth had proven that the owner-victim was, in fact,

present when the offense occurred. See also Commonwealth v. Forman,

241 A.3d 467 (Pa. Super. filed Oct. 27, 2020)9 (unpublished memorandum

decision) (even though victims “tried to enter home” while it was being

burglarized, and then immediately retreated to their car, section 3502(a)(1)

burglary conviction upheld).

       King admits in his appellate brief that “[t]he incident occurred outside”

the victim’s residence. Appellant’s Brief, at 14. In fact, video surveillance of

the crime shows the victim standing on the front porch 10 of his home when
____________________________________________

9 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (non-precedential decisions filed after May 1, 2019,

may be cited for persuasive value).

10 Responding officers testified that the victim’s two-story residence had a
“side porch that went up steps.” N.T. Jury Trial, 12/6/21, at 63. See also
id. at 89 (officer testifying on cross-examination he “observed people coming
down the side steps of the residence” when he arrived at scene). When the
officer arrived on the scene, he observed King and his accomplice(s) emerge
from the victim’s home, “c[o]me out the door and c[o]me down the steps on
the side of the residence.” Id.; see also id. at 92 (“And that’s the stairwell
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -5-
J-S34002-23

the three assailants, wearing dark-colored clothing and facial coverings, run

toward him and point a firearm at him. The victim attempts to fight off the

three men with a broom; however, during the struggle, one of the assailants

fires a round at the victim, striking him in the leg. The victim falls down and

is beaten by the three men. The assailant with the gun then fires two more

shots, one grazes the victim and the final shot, to the victim’s chest, fatally

wounds him.       The three men then enter the victim’s residence, exit the

residence several seconds later, and drag the victim back into his home

through the front door. See Commonwealth Exhibit III (video surveillance

footage from 208 Conestoga Road).

       The fact that the victim was on the porch when King entered the

residence and burglarized the home supports the finding that the dwelling was

occupied.    We decline to interpret section 3502 in a hyper-technical way,

where doing so would defeat the purpose of the statute. In short, “violence

[was] equally present” whether the victim was just inside the front door of the

residence or merely feet away on its porch at the time of the crime.

Commonwealth v. Stepp, 652 A.2d 922, 924 (Pa. Super. 1995) (“ ̀[T]he
____________________________________________

on the side of 208 Conestoga that you observed the three individuals.”). One
of King’s arresting officers testified regarding the appearance of the victim’s
front porch, specifically recognizing that the porch was on the side of the
house and had steps coming off it that led down to the residence’s surrounding
yard. See N.T. Jury Trial, 12/6/21, at 64-65 (perpetrators “ran down the
steps [from the porch] and fled towards the back of the residence[, and after
following them to the back of the house, officer] saw three of the individuals
. . . running down Conestoga Road toward the dead-end.”). Moreover, the
Commonwealth entered into evidence pictures of the residence, as well as the
side and rear yards of the home. See Commonwealth Exhibits 5-11.

                                           -6-
J-S34002-23

likelihood for greater’ mischief and violence is equally present both when a

person returns to their residence and discovers an intruder and when a person

[who is] already within the home discovers an intruder.”); see also id. at 923

(Pa. Super. 1995) (where homeowner entered mobile home at time of

burglary, Court found “a technical application of the definition of burglary

missed the purpose and spirit which underline the different offense gravity

scores. . . . A potentially violent encounter exists whenever a person discovers

an intruder inside his home.”).

       Because the victim was on the porch, which was part of the home’s

structure, the dwelling was occupied for purposes of proving burglary under

section 3502(a). See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3502(a)(1)(i)(ii); Callen, supra. Thus,

we find no merit to this claim.

       In his second and final issue, King contends that the trial court abused

its discretion when it amended the standard jury instruction for accomplice

testimony11 causing the instruction to “fail[] to explain to the jury accurately
____________________________________________

11 The Suggested Standard Jury Instruction for accomplice testimony is:

       First, you should view the testimony of an accomplice with
       disfavor because it comes from a corrupt and polluted source.

       Second, you should examine the testimony of an accomplice
       closely and accept it only with care and caution.

       Third, you should consider whether the testimony of an
       accomplice is supported, in whole or in part, by other evidence.
       Accomplice testimony is more dependable if supported by
       independent evidence. [However, even if there is no independent
       supporting evidence, you may still find the defendant guilty solely
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -7-
J-S34002-23

how they should access accomplice testimony.”12           Appellant’s Brief, at 12.

More specifically, King contends that the jury should have been instructed that

accomplice Taylor’s testimony “had to be considered with caution because an

accomplice may place blame on another.” Id. at 16.13

       The standard charge for accomplice testimony is commonly referred to

as “the corrupt and polluted source charge.” Commonwealth v. Lawrence,

165 A.3d 34, 44 (Pa. Super. 2017).               “The corrupt source charge[,] in

particular[,] is designed specifically to address situations where one

accomplice testifies against the other to obtain favorable treatment. It directs

the jury to view the testimony of an accomplice with disfavor and accept it

only with care and caution.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 17 A.3d, 873, 906

(Pa. 2011).

____________________________________________

       on the basis of an accomplice’s testimony if, after using the special
       rules I just told you about, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable
       doubt that the accomplice testified truthfully and the defendant is
       guilty.]

Pa. SSJI (Crim) 4.01 (italics and brackets in original).

12 The Commonwealth, too, suggested the standard jury instruction for
accomplice testimony in its proposed instructions.

13 King preserved this issue by objecting to the omitted language he suggested

for accomplice testimony. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 647(C); see also N.T. Jury Trial,
12/10/21, at 988-89 (defense counsel noting objection on record that court
removed following language: “Experience shows that an accomplice, when
caught, may often try to place blame falsely on someone else.”); id. at 989
(defense counsel objecting to court’s removal of words “corrupt” and wicked”
when instructing jury that accomplice may testify falsely in hope of obtaining
favorable treatment or for some “corrupt or wicked motive.”).

                                           -8-
J-S34002-23

      [A] trial court has broad discretion in phrasing its instructions, and
      may choose its own wording so long as the law is clearly,
      adequately, and accurately presented to the jury for its
      consideration. Commonwealth v. Charleston, [] 94 A.3d 1012,
      1021 (Pa. Super. 2014)[.]         A jury charge will be deemed
      erroneous only if the charge as a whole is inadequate, not clear or
      has a tendency to mislead or confuse, rather than clarify, a
      material issue.

Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 77 A.3d 663, 667 (Pa. Super. 2013).

      Here, the trial court gave the following accomplice testimony instruction

to the jury:

      I have defined accomplice liability to you. I have indicated that a
      person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of a
      crime if he or she has the intent to promoting or facilitating the
      commission of that crime, solicits the other person to commit it,
      or aids or agrees or attempts to aid or agree[—]excuse me, or
      attempts to aid the other person in committing the planning. An
      accomplice is a person who knowingly and voluntarily cooperates
      with or aids another person in committing an offense.

      When a Commonwealth witness is an accomplice, his or her
      testimony has to be judged by special precautionary rules.
      He or she may testify falsely in the hope of obtaining
      favorable treatment or for some other motive. On the other
      hand, an accomplice may be a truthful witness.

      The special rules that I will give you are meant to help you
      distinguish between truthful and false accomplice testimony.

      In view of Dustin Taylor’s testimony, you must decide whether
      Dustin Taylor was an accomplice of the crimes charged. If, after
      considering all of the evidence, you find that he was an
      accomplice, then you must apply the special rules to his
      testimony. Otherwise, you would ignore those rules.

      Use this test to determine whether Dustin Taylor was an
      accomplice. Again, an accomplice is a person who knowingly and
      voluntarily cooperates with and/or aids in the commission of a
      crime.

      Special rules that apply to accomplice testimony are these:
      First, you should view the testimony of an accomplice with

                                      -9-
J-S34002-23

     disfavor because it comes from a corrupt and tainted
     source; second, you should examine the testimony of an
     accomplice closely and accept it only with care and caution;
     third, you should consider whether the testimony of an
     accomplice is supported in full or in part by other evidence.

     Accomplice testimony is more dependable if it is supported by
     independent evidence. However, even if there is no independent
     supporting evidence, you may still find the Defendant guilty solely
     on the basis of an accomplice’s testimony if[,] after using these
     special rules I’ve just told you about, you are satisfied beyond a
     reasonable doubt that the accomplice testified truthfully and the
     Defendant is guilty.

     Again, the special rules are, first, you should view the
     testimony of the accomplice with disfavor because it comes
     from a corrupt and tainted source. And second, you should
     examine the testimony of an accomplice closely and accept it only
     with care and caution.

     Separate and apart from the fact of whether that witness was an
     accomplice, you should examine closely and carefully and
     receive with caution the testimony of Dustin Taylor if you
     find he has provided testimony with the intent to receive a
     benefit after giving that testimony.

     You’ve also heard that Dustin Taylor has been convicted of a
     crime. The purpose for which you may consider the prior
     conviction is in deciding whether or not to believe him, all or part
     of his testimony. In doing so, you may consider the type of crime
     he committed, and how it may affect the likelihood that he has
     testified truthfully in this case.

     You’ve also heard evidence that certain witnesses, Dustin Taylor
     among them, made statements on earlier occasions that were
     inconsistent with his present testimony. First of all, you, the jury
     will determine whether the statements were inconsistent.
     Secondly, if you do find that, you may, if you choose, regard that
     as evidence, that is, the prior inconsistent statement, of the truth
     of anything that the witness said in the earlier statement. You
     may also consider that evidence to help you judge the credibility
     and weight of the testimony given to you in this trial.

N.T. Jury Trial, 12/10/21, at 1102-06 (emphasis added).

                                    - 10 -
J-S34002-23

      Based on the highlighted language above, we are not persuaded by

King’s argument that the trial judge’s accomplice testimony instruction was

“inadequate, not clear[,] or ha[d] a tendency to mislead or confuse, rather

than clarify, a material issue [for the jury].”      Sandusky, supra at 667.

Rather, the instruction clearly advised the jury that if they found Taylor was

King’s accomplice, they were required to receive his testimony with disfavor

because it came from a corrupt and tainted source who may testify falsely to

receive favor. See Smith, supra at 906 (“In any case where an accomplice

implicates the defendant, the judge should tell the jury that the accomplice is

a corrupt and polluted source whose testimony should be viewed with great

caution.”).

      Moreover, the judge instructed the jury that they could consider Taylor’s

prior conviction and whether, based on the crime he committed and how long

ago he committed it, it would affect Taylor’s ability to testify truthfully. Id. at

1105. The court also reminded the jury that Taylor had made inconsistent

statements (before and during trial) and that it was up to the jury to determine

the weight and credibility of Taylor’s trial testimony. Id. at 1106. Finally, the

court gave a detailed instruction on judging the credibility of witnesses,

stating:

      As judges of the facts, you are the sole judges of the credibility of
      witnesses and their testimony. This means you must judge the
      truthfulness and accuracy of each witness’s testimony and decide
      whether to believe all[,] part[,] or none of that testimony.

      The following are some of the factors that you should and may
      consider when judging credibility, deciding who to believe, what

                                      - 11 -
J-S34002-23

      testimony to believe or not: Was the witness able to see, hear,
      or know the things about which he testified; how well could the
      witness remember and describe the things about which he or she
      testified; did the witness testify in a convincing manner; how did
      he or she look, act, and speak while testifying; was his or her
      testimony uncertain, confused, self-contradictory or evasive; did
      the witness have any interest in the outcome of the case; did the
      witness have any bias, prejudice, or other motive that might affect
      his or her testimony; how well does the testimony of the witness
      square with the other evidence in the case, including the
      testimony of other witnesses; was it contradicted or supported by
      other testimony and evidence; did it make sense?

      If you believe some part of the testimony of a witness to be
      inaccurate, consider whether the inaccuracy cast[s] doubt upon
      the rest of his or her testimony. This may depend on whether he
      or she has been inaccurate in an important matter or only a minor
      detail and on any possible explanation. For example, did the
      witness make an honest mistake or simply forget, or did he or she
      deliberately falsify [testimony].

      While you are judging the credibility of each witness, you are likely
      to be judging the credibility of other witnesses or evidence. If
      there is a real irreconcilable conflict, it is up to you to decide which,
      if any, conflicting testimony to believe.

Id. at 1091-94. Smith, supra at 906 (“If the evidence is sufficient to present

a jury question with respect to whether the prosecution’s witness was an

accomplice, the defendant is entitled to an instruction as to the weight to be

given to that witness’s testimony.”).      Accordingly, we find that the court’s

charge was not erroneous. Sandusky, supra.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                       - 12 -
J-S34002-23

DATE: 12/8/2023

                  - 13 -