Com. v. Small, E. ( 2021 )

J-A12039-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ERIC EUGENE SMALL :
:
Appellant : No. 983 MDA 2020
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 2, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-CR-0001458-2011
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JULY 20, 2021
Eric Eugene Small (“Small”) appeals from the Order dismissing his
Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm.
Our Supreme Court, in its Opinion, previously set forth the factual
background underlying this appeal, which we adopt as if set forth herein. See
Commonwealth v. Small, 189 A.3d 961, 963-67 (Pa. 2018). In summary,
Small was convicted of first-degree murder and carrying a firearm without a
license2 in connection with the shooting death of William Price (“Price”) in the
early morning hours of March 7, 2011, outside of Club Egypt, a nightclub in
Harrisburg, Dauphin County.
____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 6106(a)(1).
J-A12039-21
The primary issue at trial was the identity of the shooter, as no
witnesses had directly observed the shooting. Kenosha Tyson (“Tyson”), who
was the mother of the children of Small’s friend Pedro Espada (“Espada”),
testified that Price had assaulted her in a different nightclub a few days before
the murder. The Commonwealth presented numerous witnesses, including
friends of Small and Espada, and friends of Price. All of these witnesses
testified that they had observed Small walking away from Club Egypt with his
arm around Price, heard a gunshot shortly after, and then saw Price laying on
the ground. One witness, Ali Williams, a friend of Small and Espada, testified
that he saw Small with something in his left hand as Small walked with his
right arm around Price. The Commonwealth also presented testimony from
two Harrisburg police officers, who investigated the shooting, and two
jailhouse witnesses, who testified that Small had made incriminating
statements to each of them when they shared a cell with Small. Forensic
pathologist Wayne Ross, M.D. (“Dr. Ross”), testified that Price died due to a
contact gunshot wound to the head, and opined that the barrel of the gun had
to have been pressed into Price’s face when he was shot.
Small’s theory at trial was that Espada shot Price. Small presented an
alternative motive, i.e., that Espada killed Price because he had assaulted
Tyson, who gave birth to Espada’s child just a few weeks before the assault.
Further, Small pointed to multiple witnesses’ testimony that Espada was
-2-
J-A12039-21
walking behind Small and Price just before the shooting, and could have been
close enough to Price to cause the contact gunshot wounds.
Further, Small presented evidence indicating that Espada had confessed
to the murder. Lisa Small, Small’s sister, testified that she had learned from
Jasmine Spriggs, Espada’s then-girlfriend, that Espada admitted to shooting
Price. Deleon Dotson (“Dotson”) testified that Espada had confessed to
shooting Price from three to five feet away, and that Small had taken the
blame for the murder, even though Espada had shot Price.
At the conclusion of trial, a jury convicted Small of first-degree murder,
and carrying a firearm without a license. On October 1, 2012, the trial court
imposed an aggregate sentence of life in prison. This Court affirmed Small’s
judgment of sentence, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his
Petition for allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Small, 87 A.3d 879(Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 94 A.3d
1009 (Pa. 2014).
In September 2014, Small filed a timely PCRA Petition and was
appointed counsel, who filed and an Amended PCRA Petition in March 2015.
In the Amended Petition, Small presented after-discovered evidence through
an Affidavit by Tyson, wherein she averred that Espada had confessed to
shooting Price hours after the murder, and that Tyson had withheld this
information because neighborhood residents were threatening witnesses, and
-3-
J-A12039-21
because she was concerned that her involvement in the case would jeopardize
her custody proceedings.
Following a May 2015 evidentiary hearing, on January 19, 2016, the
PCRA court granted Small a new trial, based upon its finding that Tyson’s
testimony constituted new evidence which could have changed the outcome
of Small’s trial. The Commonwealth appealed, and this Court reversed the
PCRA court’s grant of a new trial. See Commonwealth v. Small, 169 A.3d
1199 (Pa. Super. 2017) (unpublished memorandum). Thereafter, our
Supreme Court vacated this Court’s Order, and remanded to the PCRA court
for an assessment of the credibility of Tyson’s testimony. See Small, 189
A.3d at 979.
Following our Supreme Court’s remand, the PCRA court determined that
Tyson’s testimony would not have led the jury to a different result. PCRA
Court Opinion, 6/30/20, at 14-24. Thereafter, Small filed a timely Notice of
Appeal, and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters
complained of on appeal.
Small raises the following issue for our review:
Whether the PCRA court erred in finding that Tyson’s new
testimony is not of a higher grade or character than that presented
at trial and in finding that a different result would not occur if a
new trial was granted, when Tyson’s testimony was credible and
the trial testimony indicated that Espada was close enough to
cause the type of wound testified to by Dr. Ross?
Brief for Appellant at 6 (title and numbering omitted).
-4-
J-A12039-21
Small argues that the PCRA court abused its discretion in failing to
consider testimony which placed Espada in close enough proximity to Price to
cause a contact gunshot wound. Id. at 12. Small points to testimony
indicating that Espada was a few feet behind Small and Price moments before
the shooting and approaching them at a quicker pace. Id. at 12-13. Small
also directs our attention to testimony indicating that two of Price’s friends
initially gave chase to Espada, not Small, which, Small asserts, was because
Espada was the shooter. Id. Small asserts that a jury would not have needed
to discount Dr. Ross’s testimony to conclude that Espada was the shooter, as
Espada was located close enough to Small and Price that he could have caused
a contact gunshot wound. Id. at 14-15. Finally, Small brings our attention
to testimony that Espada possessed a firearm shortly after the shooting, as
Small asserts that Espada fired shots in the direction of Price’s friends as they
pursued him. Id. at 15. For these reasons, Small argues, Tyson’s new
evidence holds more weight, and Small is entitled to a new trial. Id.
We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA in
the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level.
This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the
evidence of record. We will not disturb a PCRA court’s ruling if it
is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. This
Court may affirm a PCRA court’s decision on any grounds if the
record supports it. We grant great deference to the factual findings
of the PCRA court and will not disturb those findings unless they
have no support in the record. However, we afford no such
deference to its legal conclusions. Further, where the petitioner
raises questions of law, our standard of review is de novo and our
scope of review is plenary.
-5-
J-A12039-21
Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations
omitted).
Under the PCRA,
[w]here a petition is otherwise timely, to prevail on an after-
discovered evidence claim for relief under [42 Pa.C.S.A.
§] 9543(a)(2)(vi), a petitioner must prove that (1) the
exculpatory evidence has been discovered after trial and could not
have been obtained at or prior to trial through reasonable
diligence; (2) the evidence is not cumulative; (3) it is not being
used solely to impeach credibility; and (4) it would likely compel
a different verdict. Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 856 A.2d 806,
823 (Pa. 2004); see [Commonwealth v.] Cox, 146 A.3d [221,]
227-28 [(Pa. Super. 2016)] ([stating that] “[o]nce jurisdiction has
been properly invoked, ... the relevant inquiry becomes whether
the claim is cognizable under [Section 9543] of the PCRA.”).
Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 629 (Pa. 2017) (citation omitted).
The factual findings of a post-conviction court, which hears evidence and
passes on the credibility of witnesses, should be given deference. See
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294, 319 (Pa. 2014). Our Supreme Court
has acknowledged that
[r]ecantation testimony is extremely unreliable. When the
recantation involves an admission of perjury, it is the least reliable
form of proof. The [PCRA] court has the responsibility of judging
the credibility of the recantation. Unless the [PCRA] court is
satisfied that the recantation is true, it should deny a new trial.
An appellate court may not disturb the [PCRA] court's
determination absent a clear abuse of discretion.
Commonwealth v. Henry, 706 A.2d 313, 321 (Pa. 1997) (internal citations
omitted).
In its Opinion, the PCRA court thoroughly addressed Small’s claim, and
concluded that it lacks merit. See PCRA Court Opinion, 6/30/20, at 18, 20-
-6-
J-A12039-21
24. Specifically, the PCRA court determined that Tyson’s testimony was not
credible, and that her testimony would not have compelled a different verdict
if it had been presented at trial. Id. The PCRA’s findings are supported in the
record, and its legal conclusion is sound. See id. We therefore affirm on the
basis of the PCRA court’s Opinion with regard to this claim. See id.Additionally, we observe the following. Regarding Small’s argument
that the PCRA court failed to properly consider forensic evidence, which, he
argues, could also support Espada as the shooter, we note that the identity of
the shooter—including the potential for Espada to have fired the fatal shot—
was the key point of contention at trial. Multiple witnesses testified as to the
positioning of both Espada and Small at the time Price was shot. Dr. Ross
also testified as to the nature of Price’s gunshot wound, and that the shooter
would have had to be close enough to Price to press the gun into his face when
the shot was fired. Additionally, we observe that at no point during the PCRA
proceedings did Tyson, or any other witness, bring forth any additional
evidence regarding the positioning of Small, Espada, and Price when Price was
shot. See Small, 189 A.3d at 963-67 (wherein our Supreme Court details
the testimony presented at Small’s trial).
Order affirmed.
-7-
J-A12039-21
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 07/20/2021
-8-
I
Circulated 07/06/2021 12:17 PM
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
ERIC SMALL :1458 CR 2011
,1
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON
REMAND FROM SUPREME COURT
"...There's aguy starting to realize that his eternal fate has turned its back on him. It's
two A M.... "1
Defendant Eric Small was convicted by ajury of criminal homicide and firearms not be
carried without alicense following atrial held on August 6, 2012 through August 8, 2012. The
conviction stemmed from William (Will) Price being fatally shot in the head after walking out of
Club Egypt in Harrisburg. On October 1, 2012, Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment
forth homicide conviction and three (
3) to seven (
7}Years of imp risonment for the firearms
conviction, to run concurrent with the life sentence.
Defendant filed anotice of appeal, and his judgment of sentence was affirmed by the
Superior Court on October 9, 2013. On September 2, 2014, Defendant filed atimely pro se
PCRA petition. Christopher Dreisbach, Esq., was appointed as Defendant's counsel. On March
23, 2015, Attorney Dreisbach -filed aPCRA petition on behalf of Defendant, alleging ineffective
'Twit ghtZone, (1982) written by George Kooymons, Golden Earring; 21/Polygram Records
1
•-7- T4
C,14
assistance of trial counsel and newly found evidence that would warrant anew trial.' A hearing
was held on the petition .After careful consideration of the request for PCRA relief and the
testimony set forth•
at the PCRA .hearing,this Court,in an Order filed simultaneously with this
opiniop,granted PCRA relief in the form of anew trial based upon newly discovered evidence. 3
I
I" Commonwealth appealed and Superior Court reversed and remanded by Order of April
i
21, 2017 .4 Certiori was granted and by Order and Opinion of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
dated July 18,2018,vacated Superior Court'
sOrder and remanded to the trial court to reassess
the PCRA findings consistent with its clarification and proper analysis of the "merely
corroborative or cumulative evidence" standard in after acquired evidence .After hearing and
argument thereon, this Opinion is entered.
i
ii In the early morning hours of March 7, 2011, the victim ,William (Will) Price,was fatally
C.
shot in the head after walking out of Club Egypt in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Z On April 28, 2015, Attorney Dreisbach filed aSupplement to the March 23``d PCRA petition (incorporating the
original petition )and adding an averment of additional newly found evidence.Specifically,an additional person
had come forward with information. However,Attorney Dreisbach later decided against pursuing testimony from
this particular witness. See PCRA Hearing,June 29, 2015,Notes of Testimony, p3.
3Defendant' sclaims of ineffective assistance of counsel as abasis nor anew trial were addressed by this Court,
and were deemed without merit.
4 Commonwealth v. Eric Small, 245 MDA 16, curlish Opinion drafted by assigned retired senior trial court Judge
Platt defies civility amongst fellow jurists.He clearly did not understand the basis for my analysis. Iattribute that
to my inability to properly draft an opinion that made clear why my shift in analysis existed.
In weighing the appropriate manner to assess the new testimony,this Court was trying to project the
direction of the appellate court'
sdirection in light of various cases which required the proper assessing of facts and
their import to be by the jury and not atrial judge as gate keeper.
I Whether it be in the area of Products Liability or relatively clear and easily established elements of acrime
(such as person prohibited by law to possess afirearm)to other instances affecting gradation,iperceived a
direction to step away from my making of acredibility decision and opted to review as if ajury could,if they
wished assess the testimony with agreater weight and arrive at adifferent result. I
was clearly wrong,hence the
remand .Maybe that can explain the reason this Courts̀direct appeal opinion differs greatly in tenor than its PCRA
opinion granting anew trial.
1
X 2
I
i
I•
Police officers were called to investigate the shooting, which occurred in the area of
Second and State Streets in Harrisburg, at just after 2:00 a.m. [N.T., Vol. 2, 8-7-12, p. 7]. It was
snowing on March 7th ,and some of the officers called to the scene that morning followed atrail
of footprints found near the victim's body. The prints eventually led the officers to apartment
buildings in the 2100 Block of North 5th Street. [N.T., Vol. 2, 8-7-12, pp. 38-841. The officers
proceeded to knock on doors and, while they were doing so, Defendant came out of Apartment
2. [N.T., Vol. 2, 8-7-12, p. 85].. Detective John O'Connor testified that, during his conversation
with Defendant, Defendant appeared nervous and jumpy. [N.T., Vol. 2, 8-7-12, p. 86].
'The testimony of the events leading up to Will Price's shooting reveals that several
friends/acquaintances were at Club Egypt until closing time on the night in question, and exited
the club at about the same time. After exiting the club, Defendant was seen with his arm
wrapped around Will Price while the two men were walking, heading towards Second and State
Streets. [N.T., Vol. 2, 8-7-12, pp. 156, 174, 175]. Lisa Small, Defendant's sister, observed this
,
I
and, ashort time later, heard agunshot. Her testimony-at trial was that she then saw the victim
on the ground, Defendant running, and then observed aman named Pedro Espada fire two
i
gunshots shortly after the initial gun shot went off. [N.T., Vol. 2, 8-7-12 pp. 172, 174, 189-191].
Another witness, Shamar Evans, acousin of the victim, also testified that he saw Will
Price walking away from Club Egypt with an individual fitting the general description of
Defendant (as far as the clothing he was wearing on the evening in question), and that such
individual had his arm around Will Price's shoulder while walking towards Second and State
Streets. [N.T., Vol. 2, 8-7-12, pp. 205-208]. Moments later, Evans turned to get into his car, sat
3
down „looked back over at Will Price, and saw him falling on his back.[
N.T., Vol .2, 8-7-12, p.
i,
208]. •Vhen he reached Price and saw that his eye was swollen /bulging,he started following
(on foot)the person who had been standing right next to Price .[
N.T., Vol .2, 8-7-12, pp. 209-
2131. Pans ran down State Street,saw the man run into an alley,then heard additional gun
shots. He testified that he then slowed his pace because the individual had agun. [N .T., Vol. 2,
f
8-7-12, pp. 213-
215]. When Evans stopped back to check on Price,the police were already on
the scene. [N.T., Vol. 2, 8-7-12, p. 215].
Witness Andre Knight was also at Club Egypt on March 7th,and testified that he saw
Defendant talking to Price,with his arm around him. As he crossed Second Street, Knight heard
agunshot and then saw Defendant and others running down State Street .[
N.T., Vol. 3, 8-8-12,
I.
pp. 49. 591. Knight went to Lisa Small'
sapartment after the incident,and. Defend ant showed up
at Lisa'
sapartment at around the same time .[
N.T., Vol .3, 8-8-12,pp. 60-
61]. Knight testified
that hleheard Defendant said that "cuz got what he deserved ," and "we did what we had to
do." [N.T., Vol. 3, 8-8-12, pp. 62-63].
Ali Williams, Lisa Small'
sboyfriend,was also apart of the group.
at Club Egypt during'the
time frame in question .Williams testified that he noticed Defendant and Pedro Espada talking,
during which they "
kept looking at Will." [N .
T., Vol. 3,8-8-12,Q. 85]. When he asked them
what was going on, Defendant and Espada told her not to worry about it. [N.T., Vol .3, 8-8-12,
p. 85]. After exiting the club,Williams testified that while he was crossing the street on the way
to Second and State Streets,he heard agunshot.When he looked up, he saw Pedro Espada in
the middle of State Street, and observed Defendant standing over Will Price, while Price was
4
I:
lying on the ground. [N.T., Vol., 3, 8-8-12, p. 85]. When questioned further, Williams stated
that before hearing the gunshot, and before he saw Defendant standing over Price, Defendant
i.
had his right arm around Price, and had his left arm to the side, "and you could tell he
I•
(Defendant) had something ... in his left hand." [N.T., Vol. 3, 8-8-12, p. 88].
jTwo of Defendant's cellmates also testified at trial. Kenneth Hibbert stated that
Defendant told him different scenarios of what happened: (1) that he was walking with Price
with his arm around him, a4the gun went off; (2) he was walking with Price, parted from him
I
for asecond, was afew feet away from him when the gun went off and Price hit the ground; (3)
i
and that Defendant "snapped" one day and said to Hibbert that he "killed William Price for
ii
Pedroii,and turned [his] face into hamburger meat." [N.T., Vol. 4, 8-9-12, pp. 11-12]. According
j
to Hib,bert, when Defendant found out that he had made statements against him, he told
Hibbejrt that he would kill him too, like he killed William Price. [N.T., Vol. 4, 8-9-12, p. 13].
I'
I:
Another ceilmate, Jeffrey Reid, testified that, according to Defendant, the murder of
William Price came about because, "William Price had problems with his sister and his boy
I.
PedroiEspada,....and he said he shot him in the head." [N.T., Vol. 4, 8-9-12, p. 26-27].
With regard to what Defendant has referenced in his issue on appeal, the record reflects
conflicts among some of the witnesses' testimony. During Lisa Small's testimony, she
contradicted earlier statements given to detectives.when she claimed that she saw Pedro
Espada fire off the two gunshots after the initial gunshot went off. [N.T., Vol. 2, 8-7-12, pp. 177,
If.
178,189-190]. Additionally, Detective Ryan Neal testified regarding Lisa Small's second
i
statement to him during an interview. Detective Neal had initially interviewed Lisa Small on
I
5
March' 8, 2011. The second interview/statement was taken on March 15, 2011. In the second
i•
statement, Lisa referred to information that she had heard from Jasmine Spriggs. [N.T., Vol. 3,
i
8-8-12, pp. 9-11]. Specifically, Lisa asserted that Jasmine Spriggs told her that Pedro Espada
i
was theashooter in the case. [N.T., Vol. 3, 8-8-12, p. 11].
Another witness, Deleon Dotson, also testified regarding astatement he had given to
Detective Donald Heffner. Dotson stated that Pedro told him that he (Pedro) shot Will, and
Dotsor
nrelayed this information to Detective Heffner. [N.T., Vol. 3, 8-8-12, p. 134]. Dotson
1
testified that "Dro (Pedro) said he walked up beside Eric, walked around his left side, and he
i
said h{e just pointed the gun and shot....He said he was about 3to 5feet away." [N.T., Vol. 3, 8-
8
-12, p. 135]. On redirect examination, Dotson also testified that he thought Pedro was
F
"puffing," meaning bragging in order to attain street credibility. [N.T., Vol. 3, 8-8-12, p. 136].
The Jury weighed all such testimony and returned averdict of guilty thereon; sentence
f
imposed; appeal taken; judgement affirmed.
"Well the night weighs heavy on his guilty mind" 5
On September 2, 2014, appellant filed atimely petition pursuant to the Post-
4f
r
r:
Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") 42 Pa.C.S. §§9541-9546. The PCRA court 6 appointed
r'
f
counsel, who subsequently interviewed Tyson as part of his investigation. On March 12,
e.
E,
2015;4Tyson executed the following notarized statement.
I
r
I
sTwilight Zone, (1982) written by George Kooymans, Golden Earring; 21/Polygram Records
eThe Nonorabie Scott Arthur Evans of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County presided over both
appella``nt's trial and his post-conviction proceedings.
l:
's 6
it
i
1, Kenosha Tyson, withheld certain personal knowledge from the
Harrisburg Police Department when questioned regarding the murder of
William Price, Jr. Further, Icontinued to withhold that personal
knowledge while testifying at [defendant]'s jury trial. Upon reflection, I
believe Imust make the proper authorities aware of what occurred
immediately following the murder.
Within hours of the murder, the father of my children, Pedro
Espada,,specifically admitted to me "I shot him" referring to Mr. Price, Jr.
Iwas not forthright with this information because Ifeared any
connection between me and the murder would have detrimentally
affected Children and Youth proceedings regarding the custody of my
children. Further, numerous threats were being made around my
neighborhood immediately following the murder pertaining to anyone
providing information to police.
Iam willing to testify to the above facts during any future court
proceedings, including anew trial, should [defendant)receive that
i opportunity.
I
Ihave neither-been forced nor threatened in any way to make this
statement. Further, no promises have been made to me to make this
statement. Imake this statement entirely of my own freewill.
Affidavit of Fact, Reproduced Record ("R.R.") at 270 (a).
(, Armed with Tyson's new affidavit, counsel filed an amended PCRA petition on
f•
March 23, 2015, alleging appellant was entitled to relief under 42 Pa.C.S. §9543(a)(2)(vi)
(permitting relief where the petitioner proves by apreponderance of the evidence that
the cdhviction or sentence resulted from "[t)he unavailability at the time of trial of
I'
exculpatory evidence that has subsequently become available and would have changed
k
f
the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced").'
i
1,
I
The amended petition also presented aclaim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, which the PCRA court
rejected. As defendant did not appeal that ruling, we do not discuss it further.
;j
7
!'The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on May 12, 2015. At the hearing,
I
Tyson estified that, within twenty-four hours of the murder, Espada called her and
statediEhe was coming to her apartment. N.T. 5/12/15, 56. When Espada arrived, Tyson
noticed he "was looking ahot mess.... He cut his hair and he just looked like he was up
all night crying and stuff and he was like shaken up." Id' She asked him what was
wrong; Id. After stating he had "messed up[,]" Espada proceeded to tell Tyson he killed
i
Price. ild. At 56-57. He told her he did it because of Price's prior assault on Tyson. Id.
At 57-58. He also stated everybody was "in his ear the whole night talking about he
should get him." !d. At 57.
I ``
11 According to Tyson she did not tell police about Espada's confession when they
I'
interviewed her after the murder because her "two oldest kids were in foster care and
[she] was getting alot of threats on Facebook." Id. at 59. She claimed: [T]he police
were threatening me that they would make sure my kids would stay in foster case and
when II!would have the baby Iwas pregnant with, they would take her and lock me up
I;
and make sure Ilose my apartment, and stuff like that." 1d. 9 As for her sudden
E
willingness to come forward, Tyson explained she had "been praying alot" and wanted
I•:
to remove the stress she bore from withholding this information. Id. at 60.
i
aWe note Tyson's testimony regarding when she spoke to Espada was internally inconsistent. While she
unequivocally stated iri her affidavit that she saw Espada "[wlithin hours of the murder," R.R. at 270(a), and she
testified. 'to that effect when prompted by defense counsel at the evidentiary hearing, her testimony seemingly
differed:on cross-examination. Notably, when the prosecutor asked Tyson if she had cut Espada's hair, she
responded: "I didn't give him ahaircut. When he came to my house the day he told me he shot (Price), that was
like aweek later when his hair was already cut." N.T. 5/12/15, 67 (emphasis added).
9 We no tethis statement, too, is inconsistent with other evidence. Specifically, Tyson testified at trial that she had
already 'given birth approximately two weeks before the murder. N.T. 8/7/12,132-32
i
8
On cross-examination the prosecutor challenged Tyson with the signed statement she
f
I
gave to police on March 15, 2011. In that statement, she told Detective Heffner she spoke with
Espada at some point after Price was killed, but denied they talked about murder. Id. at 63.
I'
Although Tyson admitted to signing the March 2011 statement, she claimed at the evidentiary
jE .
hearing that she did so without reading it; she also claimed the detective "wrote it very
different from what [she] said." Id. at 63-64. When asked why she failed to report the threats
Ii
li
made against her, she stated she did let police know about them, but asserted the "police were
some of the people that were threatening [her,]" and they told her there was nothing they
could do. Id. at 65,68.
fi
I
"Where am Igo now that I've gone too far?" 10
,.The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal to consider the following
'I
Issue: "Whether the Superior Court erred in reversing the PCRA court's grant of anew trial
based 'on after-discovered evidence by finding that Tyson's testimony was merely cumulative
i
and corroborative of the exculpatory evidence presented at [defendant]'s trial?"
;
1: At the outset Iacknowledge that the observations of the Supreme Court and comments
by appellant are correct. That is precisely why Iphrased my PCRA opinion to place forth, that
"If credited by ajury, Ms. Tyson's statement and testimony regarding Mr. Espada's admission to
her would likely result in adifferent verdict."
10 Twilight Zone (1982) written by George Kooymans, Golden Earring; 21/Polygram Records
9
!This Court did not make its own assessment of the credibility of Tyson's PCRA affidavit
and testimony. We did in fact, choose to relinquish that determination to ajury and that, in
essence, was the basis of the granting of anew trial to be able to effectuate same. By doing so,
we changed the manner in which precedential newly acquired evidence was assessed. This
approach was not meant as an attempt by this Court to set its own standard as opposed to
Pennsylvania precedent. Rather, it was amisadventure or mistaken postulation on my part as
I•
to the direction, I, personally, thought the metamorphosis would be taking.
1.
Cases ranging from Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct, 2151, 186 L.Ed. 2d
314 (2013), to Commonwealth v. Raymond, PICS Case No. 20 -0579, ^ Pa. Super. `` (May 27,
a
2020), ;
to Commonwealth v. Tukhih, 149 Aid 881, _ Pa. Super. _ (2016) and ,
Commonwealth v. Scott, 146 Aid 775, _ P. Super. ^ (2016) seemed to signal adirection
that all fact finding analysis should be the province solely of the jury.
li
My analysis was trying to assess whether ajury, as fact finder, could come to adifferent
assessment of the proposed new testimony projecting as to apossible finding based on their
•l
assigned weight. Inote that our final jury charge references that you are to give all the
testimony whatever weight you think it deserves.
11
jWell, it is abundantly clear that my attempt to project the future direction of appellate
jurisprudence was in error. Especially given Superior Court's curt rebukes. My hypothesis was
incorrect.
I
10
'} The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, then, wisely and helpfully gave further clarification to
i'
I•
the means
11 in reestablishing the precedential review to be taken. In doing so, they cited caselaw
from Georgia.
it
f
[T]he-true test as to whether evidence is cumulative depends not only on
i•
•j whether it tends to establish the same fact, but it may depend on whether the
.I
Ij new evidence is of the same or different grade. It is only when newly discovered
i{
I
evidence -either relates to aparticular material issue concerning which no
;I
IE witness has previously testified, or is of ahigher and different grade from that
•jpreviously had on the same material point, that it will ordinarily be taken outside
ti the definition of cumulative evidence.
I I Brown v. State, 450 S.E.2d 821, 824,(Ga. 1994) (citation omitted).
, i
i
'
To elaborate on this language, the Supreme Court stated:
.
(i
:I
We view the definitions of cumulative evidence employed by our sister
Astates to be consistent -with our decision in Flanagan, and we reaffirm that after-
Wiscovered evidence is merely corroborative or cumulative —and thus not
it
111sufficient to support the grant of anew trial -- if it is of the same character and to
f
f
the same material point as evidence already adduced at trial. It is clear the
l
Aerms of the same character and to the same point refer to distinct qualities
•of evidence; to be merely corroborative or cumulative," newly discovered
i
}eevidence
i. must tend to prove material facts that were already in evidence at trial,
;
and also be of the same grade or character of evidence as that produced at the
,
11
:I
trial to prove those material facts. See Brown, 450 S.E.2d at 824. If the new
I
evidence is of adifferent and "higher"grade or character,though upon the same
i
1
point, or of the same grade or character on adifferent point, it is not "merely"
'I
I corroborative or cumulative, and may support the grant of anew trial based on
F
after-discovered evidence.
I
i
JLater in their Opinion they further noted:
I
Collectively, these cases confirm this Court has never foreclosed —and has
;actually embraced —the notion that new evidence tending to prove amaterial
fact was in evidence at trial is not always "merely" corroborative or cumulative,
a
so long as it is of ahigher and different grade or character.Moreover,our cases
l
Iisupport asalutary goal of the after-discovered evidence from acredible source
I``•which may lead to atrue and proper judgment. See, e.g., Spencer v. State, 153
I!
!&W. 858, 860 (Tex. Crim. App.1913) ("[T]he reason for the rule forbidding anew
trial for the purpose of admitting cumulative testimony is that public policy...
.seeks to limit continued litigation, [but it] should never be applied where the
Inewly discovered testimony may be of that cogency and force where it might
;probably show that an innocent,man may probably be cause to suffer for acrime
he did not commit.") Accordingly, we now clarify that evidence which is
corroborative or cumulative, but not "merely" so--that is, the new evidence is of
ja higher grade or characterthan what was previously presented on amaterial
12
i
11 issue —may properly be use to support the grant of anew trial. The footnote
'i that follows is instructive."
The review of Tyson's testimony is not just what she says, but must be first
acknowledged who she is. Giving her rendition, as best as she now recalls, of Espada's late
r
night confession to her as one he has sought out in his emotional state. She is the mother of his
children. Presumably, one he would have atrusting relationship. The defendant argues Tyson's
'I
testimony recounting Espada's confession is of ahigher and different grade than the confession
II
testifiqid to by Dotson and Detective Neal. Further, by stressing that Tyson's relationship to
Espadaf makes her testimony "more believable," defendant implies that Tyson herself is a
,I
witness of ahigher and different quality that the other witnesses. Given her station-, we agree.
But as the Supreme Court noted,
Ordinarily, appellant's [defendant's] position would be compelling, but
I
;
the nature of Tyson's testimony complicates the matter.
;I
As the PCRA court appreciated, this Court has repeatedly "acknowledged
the limitations inherent in recantation testimony, which has been characterized
as ``extremely unreliable."' PCRA Ct. Op. at 14, citing Williams, 732 A.2d at 1180
;(internal citation omitted). In fact, we have remarked that "[tjhere is no less
reliable form of proof, especially where it involves and admission of perjury."
11 This rule aligns with those imposed by other states, and is consistent with "a noticeable trend in the decisions in
some jurisdictions which have applied the strict rule against [corroborative or] cumulative evidence to place a
greater, if not complete, reliance upon the principle that the controlling factor is the probable result or effect of
the new evidence upon another trial." T.C.W., Newly Discovered Evidence, Corroborating Testimony Given Only By
aParty or Other Interested Witness, as Ground for New Trial, 158 A.L.R. 1253 (2011).
13
Commonwealth v. Mosteller, 284 A.2d 786, 788 (Pa. 1971) (citations omitted).
'For that reason, we have emphasized that,when addressing an after-discovered
evidence claim premised on recantation testimony,"
the PCRA court must in the
first instance,assess the credibility and significance of the recantation light of
.ithe evidence as awhole." Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 856 A.2d 806,825 (Pa.
2004). "Unless the [PCRA] court is satisfied that the recantation .
is true, it should
i
•*ny anew trial." Commonwealth v. Henry, -706 A.2d 313, 321 (Pa. 1997)
;(citations omitted).
With these well-established principles in mind, we find it necessaryto
;;answer two preliminary questions central to the after-discovered evidence
;analysis in this case.First,do Tyson's,affidavit and new testimony amount to a
'recantation ?And if so,then second,did the PCRA court believe that recantation
ito be true?
The answer to the first question is clear. Although Tyson's new
statements did not directly conflict with her trial testimony-neither party asked
T
yson at trial if she ever discussed the murder with Espada —it is undoubtedly a
recantation of her March 15, 2011 statement to police. In that statement, which
the Commonwealth introduced at the evidentiary hearing.Tyson stated: "I
i
spoke to Pedro [Espada] but didn't talk about [
the murder]." N.T. 5/12/15, 63.
She directly contradicted this statement in her 2015 affidavit and testimony by
a
sserting that when she spoke with Espada just hours after the murder, he
confessed to her he committed the crime. Moreover,in her 2015 affidavit,
14
Tyson acknowledged she "withheld certain personal knowledge from the
lHarrisburg Police Department when questioned... [and] continued to withhold
I
;!that personal knowledge while testifying at defendant's jury trial." Affidavit of
!F act, R.R. 270(a).
!Commonwealth v. Price, pgs. 26-27
I
Before we go to much farther in the weighing and comparing Tyson's statements and
testimony, the Court wishes to retract, or restate, asentence which has haunted this author for
some time. In our earlier PCRA opinion, we stated "In light of the circumstantial evidence at
trial, an+dnot ashred of forensic evidence to support Defendant as the shooter, adifferent
outcome is p
probable. "Today
Ywe wish to restate that p
position as "In light
g of the circumstantial
f
r
evidence at trial and not ashred of direct forensic evidence to support Defendant as the .
!t
shoote, such as gun powder residue, fingerprints or the like, adifferent outcome, based on ,a
jury's weighing of the totality of the case, could lead to acontrary result. We acknowledge, as
previod;sly stated herein, that this is not the standard of review. The jury would have to
I
discount the testimony.of Dr. Wayne Ross.
I
D
r. Wayne Ross, aForensic Pathologist, testified the cause of Price's death was a
gunsho,t wound to the head and the manner of death was homicide. N.T. 8/7/12, 28-29. Dr.
Ross explained the fatal bullet entered "the left side of [Price's] face just next to the left eye"
and exited the right side of this head. A at 21-22. Importantly, he described finding soot
around the wound, which indicated it was a"contact gunshot wound," meaning the "barrel [of
the gun] was jammed up or pressed into the face." Id. at 22. According to Dr. Ross's expert
.I
1s
opinio;i
l,the gun that killed Price had to be pressed into the left side of his fact in order to leave
the soot and barrel impression examined .!d. at -26-27.
i
Furthermore, there is testimony from multiple eyewitnesses that Defendant had his
right arm around Price and was walking on Price's left side immediately before the shooting.
The forensic testimony, in assessing all defense proffered testimony is the Commonwealth's
catal Ysl to refuting same. The version that Espada gave Deleon could not have physically
happened. He said he was three feet away, three to five feet away. The forensic facts establish
that whomever killed Will Price was not three to five feet or any appreciable distance away.
The parties stipulated that the gun used in the shooting was a25 -
caliber firearm ,aMauser
semiautomatic pistol. [N.T., Vol. 4, 8-9-12, p. 36].
Importantly, Lisa Small, Defendant's sister testified, "At the time of the shooting, Will
and Eric are alone on the corner. The Uptown Boys chase my brother towards the river. Pedro
is behind the crowd, walking behind the crowd in between them and Will and Eric." That was
the init'lal statement in the recording.
g The written statement signed
g b her,on. adirect
by
tiI
put to her: "At the time of the shooting, was anyone else standing near Eric and
Will?" :•e answer was: "At the time, no."
I
This testimony is extremely important when assessing the newly acquired testimony of
Tyson. .Lisa Small's statements closer in time to the shooting and her station as the defendant's
sister, give them astrong and heavy weight.
;Then,adding thereto the defendant'
sown statement given to the police that he was at
the time the shot was fired, was the closest of anyone to Price, and the shot came at some
16
s
distance. Clearly, if the forensic findings mean anything, the shot was not at distance.
However, the defendant himself places himself as the only one capable to impress ahandgun
agains'i the deceased to create the forensic findings,leaving the barrel mark and residue of the
killing.)
We turn now to inspect Ms. Tyson's recent testimony. At the PCRA evidentiary hearing
on May 12, 2015,.Tyson testified that, within twenty-four hours of the murder, Espada called
her and stated he was coming to her apartment. N.T. 5/12/15, 56. When Espada arrived, Tyson
noticed he "was looking ahot mess.... He cut his hair and he just looked like he was up all night
crying and stuff and he was like shaken up." Id. She asked him what was wrong. Id. After
stating he had "messed up[,]" Espada proceeded to tell Tyson he killed Price. Id. at 56-57. He
told her he did it because of Price's prior assault on Tyson, Id. at 57-58. He also stated
everybody was "In his ear the whole night talking about he should get him." Id. at 57.
According to Tyson, she did not tell police about Espada's confession when they
interview her after the murder because her "two oldest kids were in foster care and [she] was
getting alot of threats on Facebook." Id. at 59. She claimed: "[T]he police were threatening me
that they would make sure my kids would stay in foster care and when Iwould have the baby 1
was pregnant with, they would take here and lock me up and make sure Ilose my apartment,
and stu,f like that. Id. As for her sudden willingness to come forward, Tyson explained she ;had
"been praying alot" and wanted to remove the stress she bore from withholding this
information. Id. at 60.
On cross-examination, the prosecutor challenged Tyson with the signed statement she
gave to police on March 15, 2011. In that statement, she Detective Heffner she spoke with
17
Espad at some point after Price was killed, but denied they talked about the murder. Id. at 63.
Although Tyson admitted to signing the March 2011 statement, she clamed at the evidentiary
hearing that she did so without reading it; she also claimed the detective "wrote it very
different from what [she] said." Id. at 63-64. When asked why she failed to report the threats
made against her, she stated she did let police know about them, but asserted the "police were
some bf the people that were threatening [her]" and they told her there was nothing they
could do. Id. at 65, 68.
We note Tyson's testimony regarding when she spoke to Espada was internally
inconsistent. While she unequivocally stated in her affidavit that she saw Espada "[w]ithin
hours of murder," R.R. at 270(a), and she testified'to that effect when promoted by defense
counse at the evidentiary hearing, her testimony seemingly differed on cross-examination.
Notably, when the prosecutor asked Tyson if she had cut Espada's hair, she responded: "I
didn't give hm ahaircut. When he came to my house that day he told me he shot [Price], that
was like aweek later when his hair was already cut." N.T. 5/12/15, 67
Although we see Tyson as someone with adifferent station than that of the other
"jailhouse snitches" with something to gain and that is to be afforded much consideration, the
ultimate quality of the substance of what that testimony actually adds to the controversy is
equally ;apart of the equation. Her relationship with Espada admittedly gives her a
comparatively higher quality. This "high grade" has many variables to consider. Some of
positive numerical value, but herein, some of undeniable negative value.
18
s
The Supreme Court stressed that "the PCRA court, as fact-finder, "is in asuperior
position to make the initial assessment of the importance of [the recantation] testimony to the
outcome of the case," and remanded with adirection for the PCRA court to "render its own,
independent findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning [the recanting person's]
credibility and the impact, if any, upon the truth-determining process which can be discerned
from such testimony." 732 A.2d at 1181.
Footnote 13 of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion herein reads:
We recognize that, in cases such as Williams and D'Amato, we specifically
remanded to the lower court could make credibility determinations on the
recantation testimony "with an eye to the relevant prejudice standard,"
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 541 (Pa. 2009), i.e., with any eye to
the fourth prong of the after-discovered evidence test. Nevertheless, we find
such credibility determinations to be equally important to the recantation
evidence that may be of adifferent grade or character that evidence presented
at trial. If the court determines the recantation testimony is incredible or
untrue, it necessarily cannot be of such ahigher and different grade or character
as to remove it from the category of "merely corroborative or cumulative"
evidence.
We recognized learned Pennsylvania jurists have similarly criticized the rote
,recitation and application of the four-pronged after-discovered evidence test as
.tendingto supplant the critical inquiry in determining if anew trial is warranted
19
—i.e., whether the new evidence is of such probative value that it would have
likely changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced. See, e.g.
Commonwealth v. Perrin, 59 A.3d 663, 669 (Pa. Super. 2013), vacated 103 A.3d
1224 (Pa. 2014) (Wecht, J., concurring) ("In practice, the third and fourth
prescribed inquires tend to collapse into each other. The fourth question,
regarding the likelihood of adifferent result, tends to dominate the entire
inquiry. I
will go one step further and suggest that the second factor, concerning
whether the after-discovered evidence in question would be merely cumulative,
similarly is subsumed by the question of prejudice:"); Commonwealth v. Choice,
830 A.2d 1005, 1010 (Pa. Super. 2003) (Klein, J., dissenting) ("I believe that what
we have called afour-prong test is really only athree[-] prong []test. Prong #3,
the ``only for impeachment' prong, is just an extension of Prong #4, that the new
evidence would not affect the outcome. Normally, evidence that just would
tend to impeach what awitness said would not change the outcome at anew
i
trial.") The definition of "merely corroborative or cumulative" evidence we
announce today favorably advances the inquiry into whether the evidence would
i
likely result in adifferent verdict, which we view as the lodestar of the after-
discovered evidence analysis.
We also took the opportunity to review Commonwealth's closing arguments to refresh
our view of their theory of the case and the impact of Tyson's new testimony. Prosecutor's
initial overview of the case was stated as, "An opportunity arose outside of Egypt Club. Eric
Small ambushed Will Price walking out, gripped him up, slow-walked him to 2111 and State
20
Street cupping a25 caliber, pressed it against his head, killed him, and fled with his buddy
Pedro to their respective homes.That, to me, isthe most logical inferences to draw from this
evidence. And Iwill explain in alittle more detail how Ihave reached that conclusion in a
second." [
Commonwealth's Closing
I; Argument
g August
g 9 2012 ,pg 3li 2-9 ]
The prosecutor went on to stress the four key eyewitnesses, one being defendant's
sister;l as the basis to weigh this case. He acknowledged that the witnesses who were called
testifying as to defendant's confessions were of lesser value. Clearly the forensic nature of the
close 'roximately gunshot wound to the relative physical positions of all the actors at the time
of the shot fired is critical. Pedro Espada's role and location were also addressed.
r
"I want to hit just head-on this idea of Pedro as the shooter. That's obviously the
defense. And the evidence suggests to me, and Isuggest to you, it is clear Pedro had some
involiement in what occurred here. That seems obvious to me based on the evidence. To what
extent, who knows.
I
think these are all logical inferences to draw from what you heard: Did he know it was
going to happen? Maybe. Did he know he made the statement the girls stay inside, something
is goi gto go down? It seems to me that he knew. Did he encourage it? Maybe. Did he order
it? Maybe.
What we do know from the testimony is that the two of them fled together. There are
two footprints, and all the witnesses indicate both men are running towards the riverfront. So
was he involved, absolutely. But there is nothing based on the evidence to suggest that he was
21
the shooter. In fact, to conclude that, you would have to disregard virtually every piece of
testimony that you heard.
Now.they want you to hang their hat on --and Iam going to use the air quotes --'the
confession to Deleon Dotson. That's really it."
[Commonwealth's Closing Argument August 9, 2012, pg 6[is 3-24)
As instructive to the lower courts, the Supreme Court herein cited at length and factual
reviewed three cases as illustrative of the types of newly acquired testimony that warrants the
granting of anew trial.
See Commonwealth v. Cooney, 282 A.2d 29 (Pa. 1971), Commonwealth v. Valderrama, 388 A.2d
1042( Pa. 2978), Commonwealth v. Bulted, 27.9 A.2d 1.58 (Pa. 1971).
1
In Bulted, the Commonwealth had made comments during closing to give little weight to
defense proffer of a"mystery man" having apurported affair with the deceased in this murder
trial of husband defendant. The Commonwealth opined in closing that it was all made up. The
later found man who admitted his affair might not affect the outcome of guilt, but the degree
of homicide was being weighed as well. Herein we have no degree of homicide issue affected
by the proffered testimony. The other cases refer to ahigher character, higher degree, higher
impact on the weighing of the overall trial.
These cases point to the required significant and discernable weight that comes and
adds to the weighing of the facts. The kind that by its very self-weight impacts the action on
22
,1 y V
k
the fulcrum of the balance of the pans of justice. In another vernacular, is the testimony, in
contrast to the evidence adduced at trial as awhole, agame changer?
Herein, there remains, by this Court's assessment, facts beyond change. And the
forensic evidence shines brightest. Although Tyson's station is of higher position, her substance
is sevirel
., Yweakened b
by her .prior statements and recantation. One need not go as far as to
find her recollection as totally false to relegate this testimony of minor impact. Espata was
unquestionably involved in this murder. His knowledge leading up to the shooting and the very
motive for the execution of Price are established. The question becomes not just was he-the
shooter, but he can be emotionally a"hot mess" because he was, in fact, amajor player in the
death of William Price.
The deductive objective reasoning of the facts testified and forensic circumstantial
evidence all lead to the inescapable conclusion of the defendant's guilt. As the Commonwealth
stated in their closing remarks, and even with the addition of Tyson's newly proffered
testimony would not require them to change, is that "this case comes down to two things: the
science and positioning. And if you take an objective, calculated look at our evidence and you
see how every key witness to this murder is corroborated, it leaves you with one conclusion
and exactly what 1promised you: that our evidence, the eyewitness testimony combined with
the science, excludes the physical possibility of everyone else except him. Think about that.
Everyone who saw this puts the two of them standing alone. There is only one person,
based on the evidence that you have. And, again I'm asking you to set aside all the speculation
and guesswork and stupid chatter, and leave you with those two pillars of this case: the science
23
V
and the positioning. There's only one person that on this evidence could have committed this
murder; that is this defendant. We ask you to find him guilty of murder in the first degree
because it is wholly supported by the evidence."
Commonwealth's Closing Argument, August 8, 2012, pg. 19 li 17 to 20 li 8.
We find no higher degree in Tyson's testimony nor would it, under the facts herein, lead
to aresult other than originally found by the jury.
ORDER
Accordingly, we hereby dismiss Defendant's PCRA petition.
BY THE COURT:
Scott Arthur Evans
Dated: June 30, 2020
Distribution: //4• e IP—D (P M
District Attorney's Office ZD
Kaitlyn Clarkson, Esq. Mui-0
24