Com. v. Brooks, W. ( 2018 )

J-S37007-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WILLIAM J. BROOKS :
:
Appellant : No. 2871 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 1, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0007456-2016
BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
Appellant, William J. Brooks, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on September 1, 2017, following his conviction for first-degree
murder and related offenses in the Criminal Division for the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history as
follows.
On June 9, 2016, at approximately 12:45 p.m., Officer Carlos
Rodriguez was off duty and at his home on the 5300 block of
Charles Street when he heard two gunshots coming from the
street. Office Rodriguez looked out of a window in the front of his
house, from where he saw a man in an orange and black hoodie
chasing a man in a white shirt across Charles Street. Officer
Rodriguez then witnessed the man in the orange and black hoodie
shoot the man in the white shirt three times. When he scanned
the street, he saw another man holding a gun by his side and
standing by a dark SUV. He heard two car doors slam shut and
saw the SUV drive away. Before the SUV turned onto an adjacent
street, Officer Rodriguez was able to record its license plate
number. Once the SUV had driven away, Officer Rodriguez
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S37007-18
approached the victim of the shooting, recognized that he was
Daniel “Bolo” Martinez, one of [Officer Rodriguez’] neighbors, and
called 911. Daniel Martinez was then taken to Frankford Aria
Hospital, where he was pronounced dead as a result of his gunshot
wounds.
On June 10, 2016, Officer Shanna Moore observed the same SUV
that was identified by Officer [] Rodriguez, parked on the 2400
Block of North Douglas Street. Police then recovered the SUV.
Upon further investigation, [the police] traced ownership of the
SUV to Appellant. When police searched the SUV, they also found
an orange and black hoodie resembling the one Officer Rodriguez
had seen the shooter wearing on June 9, 2016. On June 12, 2016,
[p]olice asked Officer Rodriguez to select Daniel Martinez’s
shooter out of a photo array, and he identified Appellant. Based
on this evidence, police arrested and charged Appellant [in
connection with the shooting] on July 20, 2016.
[During Appellant’s trial on August 30, 2017, at 10:28 a.m., an
audience member named Anthony McNeal interrupted the
proceedings, stating that he was an “alibi witness.”] After the trial
judge asked Mr. McNeal to leave the courtroom and he did not
comply, the trial judge ordered the jury to leave the courtroom.
A brief exchange between the trial judge and Mr. McNeal ensued,
after which the trial judge ordered the [court officers] to take Mr.
McNeal into custody for disrupting the trial. While the jury
remained outside the courtroom, Appellant moved for a mistrial,
claiming that Mr. McNeal’s interruption would cause the jurors to
infer that Appellant was guilty, based on his failure to call Mr.
McNeal as a known alibi witness. [The trial c]ourt denied the
motion, reasoning that a curative instruction would address
Appellant’s concerns. Moreover, Appellant confirmed that he had
no intention to call Mr. McNeal as a witness.
At 11:05 a.m.[,] the jury came back into the courtroom, and th[e
trial c]ourt provided the following curative instruction:
In homicide trials, as you can imagine, tensions and emotions
kind of run high. And outbursts sometimes happen more
frequently in these types of trials than in other types of trials
that are not quite homicides. So, I have to ask you to please
disregard the outburst that happened in the courtroom.
Neither side knew that it was coming. Neither side was
prepared for that to happen. When I say neither side I am
-2-
J-S37007-18
including [Appellant]. This was not something planned. No
one knew this was going to happen, and it shouldn’t be held
against either side, and you shouldn’t think about this any
further than this moment. Disregard it all. Remember that
I told you before that evidence comes from the witness stand
under oath in open court where each lawyer has the
opportunity to ask questions. So that didn’t happen and,
therefore, you must disregard the outburst by that
gentleman. It should not be considered by you in any way
shape or form against either side.
The trial then proceeded without further incident, and on
September 1, 201[7], the jury found Appellant guilty of
[first-degree murder (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a)), conspiracy to
commit murder (18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903(a)(1) and 2502(a)(1)),
firearms not to be carried without a license (18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 6106(a)(1)), carrying firearms on public streets and public
property in Philadelphia (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108), and possession of
an instrument of crime (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a)). Immediately
thereafter, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life in prison
without the possibility of parole.]
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on September 5, 2017.
On January 26, 2018, following completion of the notes of
testimony, Appellant filed a [concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal. The trial court issued its opinion on April
18, 2018.]
Trial Court Opinion, 4/18/18, at 1-3.
Appellant raises the following issue on appeal:
[Did the trial court err and cause irreparable harm to Appellant
when it denied Appellant’s motion for a mistrial when, without
Appellant’s instruction, an audience member, Anthony McNeal,
shouted in front of the jury that he was an alibi witness for
Appellant and the jury could only conclude that the failure to call
a known alibi witness was indicative of appellant’s guilt?]
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
-3-
J-S37007-18
We have carefully reviewed the submissions of the parties, the certified
record, and the opinion of the trial court. Based upon our review, we concur
in the trial court’s determination that the gallery member’s brief and vague
interruption did not have the unavoidable effect of depriving Appellant of a
fair trial and that a cautionary instruction was sufficient to address the
spectator’s misconduct. Hence, we agree that no abuse of discretion occurred.
Since the trial court’s opinion has adequately and accurately examined the
issue Appellant raises on appeal, we adopt the trial court’s opinion as our own.
Accordingly, we direct the parties to include a copy of the court’s opinion with
all future filings relating to our disposition in this appeal.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/26/18
-4-