Com. v. Houston, C. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S36012-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. CORRINE L. HOUSTON Appellant No. 1123 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 19, 2010 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003659-2008 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 17, 2014 Appellant, Corrine L. Houston, appeals nunc pro tunc from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following her jury trial convictions for first-degree murder and possessing instruments of crime.1 We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.2 ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. ยงยง 2502 and 907, respectively. 2 We make the following corrections to the facts and procedural history set forth in th statement on June 30, 2010 (not July 20, 2010); Appellant timely filed a pro (Footnote Continued Next Page) _____________________________ *Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S36012-14 Appellant raises one issue for our review: WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT [APPELLANT] WAS GUILTY BUT MENTALLY ILL OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER BECAUSE [APPELLANT] HAD A DIMINISHED CAPACITY DEFENSE THAT DID NOT EXCULPATE HER FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY ENTIRELY, BUT INSTEAD NEGATED THE ELEMENT OF SPECIFIC INTENT. [APPELLANT] ESTABLISHED A DIMINISHED CAPACITY DEFENSE AND PROVED THAT HER COGNITIVE ABILITIES OF DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION WERE SO COMPROMISED, BY MENTAL DEFECT AND VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION (COCAINE ABUSE), SO THAT SHE WAS UNABLE TO FORMULATE THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO KILL[,] AN ELEMENT OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER. ( ). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Glenn B. opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed June 28, 2013, at 4-8) (finding: Appellant presented expert testimony of Dr. Russell, who explained Appellant suffered from mental health problems, which caused her to her from thinking (Footnote Continued) rationally and with intent to kill; in rebuttal, _______________________ se PCRA petition seeking reinstatement of her direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc on September 13, 2011 (not September 19, 2011); and the events September 1, 2007 (not September 1, 2010). -2- J-S36012-14 nality disorder nor substance abuse had compromised her abilities as to render Appellant incapable of forming intent onfession to police in which Appellant described why she killed Victim, how she searched house for weapon to accomplish killing, and how Appellant repeatedly stabbed, beat, and strangled Victim before throwing her out window; Appellant also told police she committed killing because she was angry with herself for spending money on drugs and angry with Victim for not letting Appellant go to mitigate her culpability; jury was free to accept testimony of Appellant presented no testimony at trial to support that defense; Appellant told police she w murder; thus, Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain -degree murder conviction). Judgment of sentence affirmed. -3- Accordingly, we affirm on the J-S36012-14 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/17/2014 -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
