Com. v. Goodwin, C. (memorandum)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J.S43038/14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. CHRISTOPHER GOODWIN, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2009 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 28, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division No(s).: CP-51-CR-0012214-2011 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, and FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED JULY 14, 2014 Appellant, Christopher Goodwin, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas following a jury trial and his convictions for first-degree murder,1 carrying a firearm on public streets or public property in Philadelphia,2 and possession of an instrument of crime.3 Appellant challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence for first-degree murder. We affirm. * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502. 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108. 3 18 Pa.C.S. § 907. J. S43038/14 See Trial Ct. Op., 9/11/13, at 1-4. On May 28, 2013, a jury convicted Appellant of the above crimes. The court sentenced Appellant that day to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Appellant timely filed a postsentence motion challenge the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The court denied same on June 14, 2013. Appellant timely appealed and timely filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Appellant raises the following issues: Is [Appellant] entitled to an arrest of judgment on the charge of murder in the first degree as the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence as the Commonwealth did not prove that [Appellant] acted with a specific intent to kill, nor did the commonwealth prove that [Appellant] was aware of that intention to kill at the time of the shooting, and where the Commonwealth did not prove malice? Is [Appellant] entitled to a new trial on all charges as the verdict is not supported by the greater weight of the evidence? Appellant contends the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden because one witness was unsure Appellant was the culprit and another witness lied under oath. Appellant similarly maintains that given the hold Appellant is not entitled to relief. e sufficiency of the evidence is a question of Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). -2- J. S43038/14 [T]he critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction . . . does not require a court to ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, it must determine simply whether the evidence believed by the fact-finder was sufficient to support the verdict. Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233, 1235-36 (Pa. 2007) the evidence, an appellate court must determine whether the evidence, and all reasonable inferences deducible from that, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, are sufficient to establish Id. at 1237 (citations omitted). We will sustain a conviction of first-degree murder where the at the defendant acted with the specific intent to kill, that a human being was unlawfully killed, that the person accused did the killing, and that the killing was done with premeditation or Commonwealth v. Spotz, 759 A.2d 1280, 1283 (Pa. 2000); see also 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a). constitute premeditation may be very brief; in fact the design to kill can be formulated in a fraction of a second. Premeditation and deliberation exist whenever the assailant possesses the conscious purpose to bring about Commonwealth v. Fisher, 769 A.2d 1116, 1124 (Pa. 2001). The Commonwealth may establish the -3- specific intent to kill through J. S43038/14 circumstantial evidence. See Commonwealth v. Randall, 758 A.2d 669, 674 (Pa. Super. 2000). The Randall Court held that the repeated, demonstrate specific intent. See id. at 674-75. he decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial Commonwealth v. Pronkoskie, 445 A.2d 1203, 1206 (Pa. 1982). Commonwealth v. Sanders, 627 im a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24, 39 (Pa. 2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted). An argument that witnesses are not credible is an argument challenging the weight of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Lewis, 911 A.2d 558, 566 (Pa. Super. 2006). The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is the domain of the fact-finder. Commonwealth v. Akers, 572 A.2d 746, 752 (Pa. Super. 1990). -4- J. S43038/14 record including the trial transcript, and the decision of the Honorable See Trial Ct. Op. at 2-4 (summarizing trial testimony and holding (1) evidence, viewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth, established that eyewitnesses identified Appellant as culprit; and (2) jury elected to the weight of the evidence. See Pronkoskie, 445 A.2d at 1206. Accordingly, having discerned no error of law, we affirm the judgment of sentence. See Ratsamy, 934 A.2d at 1235. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/14/2014 -5-

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.