Com. v. Carson, D.

J-S25001-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
DAWAUN CARSON :
:
Appellant : No. 1932 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 7, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000371-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and OTT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 1, 2018
Appellant, Dawaun Carson, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial
convictions for first-degree murder, conspiracy, aggravated assault, firearms
not to be carried without a license, possessing instruments of crime, and
recklessly endangering another person.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court accurately set forth the relevant facts and
procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
AND/OR COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT DENIED
APPELLANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE, IN PART, AS SUCH
EVIDENCE WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE CRIMES CHARGED?
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a); 903; 2702(a); 6106; 907(a); 2705, respectively.
J-S25001-18
THE COMMONWEALTH PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION FOR CONSPIRACY
TO COMMIT CRIMINAL HOMICIDE, BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT.
(Appellant’s Brief at 3).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Daniel J.
Brabender, Jr., we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions
presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed August 10, 2017, at 7-8; 10-15)
(finding: (1) statements of Ms. Anderson and Ms. Bennett indicating Appellant
was their heroin dealer were relevant to establish dependent nature of Ms.
Anderson’s and Ms. Bennett’s relationship with Appellant; Appellant was
driving Subaru Tribeca on night of murder; testimony of Ms. Anderson and
Ms. Bennett established that Ms. Anderson regularly loaned Appellant her
Subaru Tribeca in exchange for heroin, and loaned Appellant her vehicle on
night of murder; Ms. Anderson’s and Ms. Bennett’s statements were also
relevant to explain that women initially lied to police to protect themselves
and Appellant; statements formed part of history and natural development of
case and were not unduly prejudicial;2 evidence showed Victim was killed by
____________________________________________
2 The Commonwealth also admitted evidence that after Appellant’s arrest and
incarceration, he sent a letter to a friend asking the friend to find someone
who could provide an alibi for Appellant. In the letter, Appellant said he
needed someone who could testify that Appellant was at his house dealing
-2-
J-S25001-18
.38 caliber bullet; Corporal Burlingame brought to trial five-inch, unloaded .38
caliber revolver, type of gun capable of discharging bullet that killed Victim,
so jury could view small size of gun;3 Commonwealth made clear revolver was
not actual murder weapon, and defense counsel thoroughly cross-examined
Corporal Burlingame regarding weapon, negating any undue prejudice; 4 (2)
Ms. Canto saw Appellant and two others in Subaru Tribeca on night of murder
near intersection of 19th and Chestnut streets; Appellant showed Ms. Canto
small weapon and stated his intent to kill Victim; shortly before murder took
place, Ms. Cox observed stalled Subaru Tribeca and two males asking for help
to jump their vehicle; Ms. Beldin observed Victim’s vehicle at stop sign at
intersection of 19th and Chestnut and heard six gun shots; Ms. Beldin saw
____________________________________________
drugs at the time of the murder. Thus, Ms. Anderson’s and Ms. Bennett’s
testimony that Appellant was their drug dealer was cumulative of other
evidence of Appellant’s drug-related activities.
3This evidence corroborated testimony from Ms. Canto that she saw Appellant
with a small gun shortly before the murder.
4 Contrary to the trial court’s initial waiver analysis, and its statement that the
revolver was not introduced during Corporal Burlingame’s testimony, the
notes of testimony make clear Appellant objected to admission of this
evidence and the revolver was admitted while Corporal Burlingame was on the
stand. (See N.T. Trial, 10/20/16, at 107, 125). Nevertheless, we agree with
the trial court’s analysis that any error in admitting the revolver was harmless.
See Commonwealth v. Dent, 837 A.2d 571 (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal
denied, 581 Pa. 671, 863 A.2d 1143 (2004) (explaining harmless error exists
if error did not prejudice Appellant or prejudice was de minimus, erroneously
admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other properly admitted
evidence, or properly admitted evidence was so overwhelming and prejudicial
effect of error was so insignificant by comparison that error could not have
contributed to verdict).
-3-
J-S25001-18
several men running from scene, one of whom was holding gun; ballistics
evidence recovered from Victim and scene established that at least two
weapons were involved, .38 caliber weapon (murder weapon) and .45 caliber
weapon; flight of men together from crime scene and use of two different
weapons supported inference of conspiracy; Commonwealth presented
sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s conspiracy to commit murder
conviction). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/1/2018
-4-