Preview:

[J-32-2009] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, GREENSPAN, JJ.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellee : : : v. : : : KAREEM JOHNSON, : : Appellant :

No. 558 CAP Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County entered at No. CP51-CR-1300424-2006 on July 3, 2007

ARGUED: April 15, 2009

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE McCAFFERY

DECIDED: December 29, 2009

On December 15, 2002, Appellant and at least one other person shot Walter Smith to death on the street in front of a bar in North Philadelphia. Some three months before his violent death, Mr. Smith had told police that an acquaintance of Appellant's, Clinton Robinson, was responsible for the August 2002 murder of another person, Margaret Thomas. Appellant was arrested in May 2006, for the murder of Mr. Smith. The

Commonwealth's theory of the case was that Appellant had killed Mr. Smith in order to prevent him from testifying against Mr. Robinson. The Commonwealth relied upon physical evidence that included the following: 1) two different types of ammunition recovered from the murder scene as well as from Mr. Smith's body, showing that Appellant had acted in concert with at least one other individual in the murder; and 2) a red baseball-type cap found at the scene that contained Appellant's DNA on the sweatband and Mr. Smith's DNA

in blood stains on the brim. In addition, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Bryant Younger, who had heard Appellant make two statements with which he implicated himself in Mr. Smith's murder. The defense sought to cast doubt upon the

Commonwealth's evidence largely by challenging the significance of the DNA evidence and by characterizing Mr. Younger as a "rat" who would do anything to avoid an impending life sentence for a federal drug conviction. Appellant was convicted by a jury in June 2007, of first-degree murder, criminal conspiracy, and possession of an instrument of crime. Appellant was sentenced to death after the jury found that any mitigating circumstances were outweighed by the aggravating circumstance that Appellant had a significant history of felony convictions involving the use of violence to the person.1 42 Pa.C.S.

Download j-32-2009mo.pdf

Pennsylvania Law