Com. v. Moore, C (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S23019-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. CHRISTOPHER MOORE Appellant No. 821 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 1, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007232-2010 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and WECHT, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JUNE 04, 2014 Christopher Moore appeals from his judgment of sentence, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, after he was found guilty by a jury of second-degree murder,1 robbery2 and criminal conspiracy.3 Moore was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Posttrial motions were filed and denied by operation of law. This appeal follows. After careful review, we affirm. On November 21, 2009, Moore fired two shots into a car, killing the woman sitting in the passenger seat. ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(d). 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701. 3 18 Pa.C.S. § 903. Video surveillance captured Moore J-S23019-14 walking across a street towards the car in which the victim was a passenger. Moments later shots were fired, the car sped away, and Moore ran to and entered a large SUV. After being apprehended, Moore gave a statement to the police regarding his involvement in the robbery and murder, telling a detective that he was promised $32,000 in exchange for playing the role of a gunman in the robbery of the victim. Moore stated that: [I]t was only supposed to be a robbery, but it got fuc*ed up. I walked up to the passenger side of the car and tapped on the window with the gun[,] I pointed the gun at them all[,] . . . [t]hen I heard the gas on what [the driver] was doing or if he was reaching for something, so I fired two times at the car. N.T. Jury Trial, 9/26/12, at 57-59. Moore also admitted that the gun he used in the shooting was a black .357 Magnum with a tan handle. At trial, a firearms expert testified that the bullet specimen recovered weapon.4 Id. -conspirators, Steven Berry, signed a written statement in the presence of the police acknowledging that he saw Moore fire two shots into the passenger side of the car as it began to pull ____________________________________________ 4 A ballistics expert explained at trial why no direct evidence of the specific weapon used in the shooting was available. Specifically, the expert explained that unlike semi-automatic weapons, revolvers do not usually expel fired cartridge casings and that because only fragmented bullets were the type of weapon that could have expelled the bullet. However, he also explained that the diameter of a bullet from a .38 or .357 gun are essentially identical and the bullet distinctions interchangeable. N.T. Jury Trial, 9/25/12, at 114. -2- J-S23019-14 away and heard Moore admit to the shooting moments after it occurred when they were in the SUV driven by the man who had provided Moore the gun used to commit the murder.5 N.T. Jury Trial, 9/25/12, at 164-67. Other than two bullet fragments, no other ballistics evidence was uncovered from the scene. Additionally, the murder weapon was never located by the police. On appeal, Moore presents the following issue for our consideration: Whether appellant is entitled to an arrest of judgment as to the charge of second-degree murder, because the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fatal bullet was in fact discharged by the firearm used during the robbery, and thus, failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the death occurred during the course of the commission of the underlying felony (robbery), as is required for second-degree murder. not prove the link between the robbery and the fatal wound sustained by the victim. Specifically, Moore asserts because no murder weapon was ever recovered, another firearm may have an intervening event may have occurred after his firing of the gun that In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the ____________________________________________ 5 Although Berry recanted this on the stand, his signed statement was nonetheless submitted at trial by the Commonwealth. -3- J-S23019-14 Commonwealth as verdict winner, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, the trier of fact could have found that each and every element of the crimes charged was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Randall, 758 A.2d 669, 674 (Pa. Super. 2000). Testimony presented by the driver of the vehicle in which the victim was shot, as well as that from investigating Officer Timothy Esack, f See N.T. Jury Id. at 46-48 (within minutes of door, and paramedics and firemen unsuccessfully attempting to resuscitate victim). Moreover, to the extent that Moore claims his murder conviction is infirm because no murder weapon was ever recovered, this argument also fails. Even though the murder weapon may not have been discovered, there is still sufficient evidence to tie Moore to the shooting. Not only did he admit to shooting the victim using a gun whose bullets were of the same type and on video and also corroborated by a co-conspirator. In addition, Moore, himself, testified that he returned the gun to its owner immediately following -4- J-S23019-14 the shooting. Because two days passed before the police were able to locate and arrest the owner of the gun, there was sufficient time for the weapon to have been disposed of. Randall, supra. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/4/2014 -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.
