conspiracy could be inferred where defendant was identified as one of several perpetrators and “was one of the men who came into the [] room along with the others, witnessed the entire incident and fled with the assailants”
How later courts described this case
- conspiracy could be inferred where defendant was identified as one of several perpetrators and “was one of the men who came into the [] room along with the others, witnessed the entire incident and fled with the assailants”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
J-S02017-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
KARAUN JONES
Appellant No. 3412 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 6, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002868-2014,
CP-51-CR-0002869-2014, CP-51-CR-0003339-2014
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and STABILE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED April 27, 2016
Karaun Jones appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following a non-jury trial1 in
which he was convicted of aggravated assault,2 robbery,3 and criminal
conspiracy.4 After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court summarized the facts of this matter as follows:
____________________________________________
1
Jones was tried with his co-defendant, Jeremy Brown, who has filed a
separate appeal at docket number 3598 EDA 2014.
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1).
3
18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii).
4
18 Pa.C.S. § 903(c).
J-S02017-16
At trial, the Commonwealth first presented the testimony of
Philadelphia Police Officer Jeffrey McMahon. Officer McMahon
testified that, on January 13, 2014, at approximately 7:30 p.m.,
he received a radio call directing him to the 2400 block of North
22nd Street in Philadelphia. There, he encountered the
complainant, Joel Flowers, lying in the street, suffering from a
gunshot wound. Based on information gathered from Mr.
Flowers, Officer McMahon submitted flash information describing
the perpetrators as two black males, both 20 years old and
wearing black hooded sweatshirts, one armed with a black
revolver. Officer McMahon then transported Mr. Flowers to
Temple University Hospital for treatment. He testified that two
individuals matching the descriptions – [Jones] and Co-
Defendant Jeremy Brown – were brought to the hospital for
identification, and Mr. Flowers positively identified them as his
assailants.
Philadelphia Police Officer Damien Stevenson testified next for
the Commonwealth. Officer Stevenson testified that on January
13, 2014, at approximately 7:30 p.m., he received a radio call of
a shooting, directing him to the 2400 block of North 22 nd Street.
Approximately one minute later, the Tactical Aviation Unit (police
helicopter), reported that it was following two males walking
southbound on the 2000 block of North 23rd Street, one of whom
just crossed to the other side of the street. Officer Stevenson
immediately proceeded to that location, where he encountered
[Jones] on the east side and Co-Defendant Brown on the west
side of the street. He ordered the males to stop, at which time
Co-Defendant Brown took off running, while [Jones] froze in
place. Back-up officers apprehended [Jones], while Officer
Stevenson pursued Co-Defendant Brown on foot. With the
assistance of police helicopter, Officer Stevenson apprehended
Co-Defendant Brown inside an alley between 23rd and Crosby
Streets.
The Commonwealth next presented eyewitness Rasheia Lyles.
Ms. Lyles testified that on January 13, 2014, at approximately
7:30 p.m., she was walking northbound on the 2400 block of
North 22nd Street, when she observed three males in close
proximity to each other. At first blush, she thought the males
were friends; within seconds, however, she heard a gunshot,
and saw the complainant, Joel Flowers, running toward her, with
the two other males fleeing in the opposite direction.
-2-
J-S02017-16
She testified that Mr. Flowers collapsed to the ground, clutching
his right bicep and yelling “my arm, my arm.” Ms. Lyles called
the police, who arrived at the scene shortly thereafter. Upon
providing physical descriptions to the police, she was transported
to 23rd and Diamond Streets, where she positively identified Co-
Defendant Brown as one of the assailants.
Additionally, at 8:05 p.m. on the same date – i.e., 35 minutes
after the incident – Ms. Lyles was interviewed by Philadelphia
Police Detective Martin. According to her recorded statement,
which she signed and adopted at 8:58 p.m., she not only
provided physical descriptions of both perpetrators, but
positively identified them as well[.]
...
Ms. Lyles changed her tune at trial, however, claiming that she
never provided a description of [Jones] or identified him to police
because she allegedly “never saw his face.” . . . [Lyles also
stated that she knew his family and] “didn’t learn that was him
out there that night until I came here today.”
...
The Commonwealth also called Detective Paul Wong to the
stand. Detective Wong testified that, approximately two hours
after his arrest, Jones provided a statement in which he claimed
that he saw another male “running fast” on 22nd Street, and
decided to run with him, even though he didn’t know what
happened[.]
...
Finally, the Commonwealth presented the complainant, Joel
Flowers. Mr. Flowers testified that on January 13, 2014, he was
walking on the 2400 block of North 22nd Street, when two males
– whom he identified as [Jones] and Co-Defendant Brown –
walked toward him from the opposite direction. When [Jones]
and Co-Defendant Brown walked past him, Mr. Flowers heard
“Yo,” prompting him to turn around, at which point Co-
Defendant Brown leveled a revolver at his face and said, “Give
me what you got.” [Jones] stood next to Co-Defendant Brown
as he pointed the gun; Mr. Flowers reached into his pockets,
pulled out his hands, and with his palms up, said, “I ain’t have
nothing.” When he turned to walk away, [Brown] shot him in
-3-
J-S02017-16
the right bicep. The two bandits then fled southbound on 22 nd
Street, and Mr. Flowers collapsed to the ground.
Mr. Flowers testified that he then was approached by a woman
(Ms. Lyles), who called the police and stayed with him until they
arrived. After describing his assailants to police, he was
transported to the emergency room at Temple University
Hospital. Within two hours of the robbery, Mr. Flowers positively
identified [Jones] and Co-Defendant Brown as his assailants, and
also positively identified them in court.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/2/15, at 2-7 (citations and footnote omitted).
Jones was sentenced on November 6, 2014, to an aggregate term of
three-and-one-half to seven years’ incarceration. Jones timely filed a notice
of appeal and court-ordered concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Jones raises the following issue for
our review:
Was the evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction of robbery,
aggravated assault and conspiracy?
Brief for Appellant, at 3.
In considering sufficiency of the evidence claims, we must determine
whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light
most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence
to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may
not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-
finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances
established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every
possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s
guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so
weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of
fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances.
-4-
J-S02017-16
Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 749, 754 (Pa. Super. 2012), affirmed
105 A.3d 1194 (Pa. 2014). The Commonwealth can satisfy its burden via
wholly circumstantial evidence. Id.
Because Brown performed the actual criminal acts of demanding items
from Flowers and shooting Flowers, Jones’ convictions are based solely on a
conspiracy or accomplice liability theory. To find that a defendant is guilty of
conspiracy, the following must be determined by the fact-finder:
(1) the defendant intended to commit or aid in the commission
of the criminal act; (2) the defendant entered into an agreement
with another (a “co-conspirator”) to engage in the crime; and
(3) the defendant or one or more of the other co-conspirators
committed an overt act in furtherance of the agreed upon crime.
Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228, 1238 (Pa. 2004). In most
cases, direct evidence of the defendant’s criminal intent or agreement to
commit a crime does not exist. Id. Thus, “the defendant’s intent as well as
the agreement is almost always proven through circumstantial evidence,
such as by ‘the relations, conduct or circumstances of the parties or overt
acts on the part of the co-conspirators.’” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v.
Spotz, 716 A.2d 580, 592 (Pa. 1998)).
Where a conspiracy has been formed, “[e]ach co-conspirator is liable
for the actions of the others if those actions were in furtherance of the
common criminal design.” Commonwealth v. King, 990 A.2d 1172, 1178
(Pa. Super. 2010). Similarly, accomplice liability arises if a defendant
intended to aid the principal and “actively participated in the crime by
-5-
J-S02017-16
soliciting, aiding, or agreeing to aid the principal.” Murphy, supra at 1234.
In order
[t]o establish complicity, mere presence at the scene of a crime
and knowledge of the commission of criminal acts is not
sufficient. Nor is flight from the scene of a crime, without more,
enough. However, those factors combined, along with other
direct or circumstantial evidence may provide a sufficient basis
for a conviction, provided the conviction is predicated upon more
than mere suspicion or conjecture.
Knox, supra at 756.
Here, the evidence at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth, established the following: Jones was walking with
Brown,5 and after they walked past Flowers, Brown accosted Flowers from
behind, attempted to rob him, and shot him in the arm. Jones was standing
beside Brown during the incident and then ran following the gunshot. After
the shooting, Jones initially ran in the same direction as Brown before
separating from Brown. The trial court interpreted the above evidence as
demonstrating that Jones’ actions were “synchronized” with Brown’s and
____________________________________________
5
Flowers testified that immediately prior to Brown committing the robbery,
Jones was walking with Brown. Lyles testified that from her perspective, the
three men appeared to be walking together with Jones trailing behind Brown
and Flowers. In his statement to police, admitted as Commonwealth’s
Exhibit 10, Jones indicated that “I ran into [Brown] at 22nd Street. I didn’t
see what happened, I saw him running fast. I hea[r]d gunshot.” Exhibit C-
10. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, and as the trial court determined as fact-finder, Jones and
Brown walked together toward Flowers prior to the attempted robbery.
-6-
J-S02017-16
“established that [Jones] manifested a clear intent to facilitate the crimes.”
Trial Court Opinion, 7/2/15, at 13.
Through circumstantial evidence, the record supports the
determination that Jones and Brown were in agreement with each other to
commit the crimes in this matter. Murphy, supra. Thus, the trial court,
sitting as fact-finder, reasonably inferred that a conspiracy existed6 between
Jones and Brown. Knox, supra. Additionally, the victim identified Jones as
one of the assailants. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 402 A.2d 507,
509 (Pa. Super. 1979) (conspiracy could be inferred where defendant was
identified as one of several perpetrators and “was one of the men who came
into the [] room along with the others, witnessed the entire incident and fled
with the assailants”).
As a member of the conspiracy, Jones became criminally liable for all
actions taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. See, e.g., Commonwealth
v. McCall, 911 A.2d 992, 997 (Pa. Super. 2006). Thus, Jones was properly
convicted of assault and robbery charges in addition to the charge of
criminal conspiracy, and his sufficiency argument is without merit.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
____________________________________________
6
We note that the evidence in this matter is essentially the minimum
quantum of evidence needed to find that a conspiracy existed, and because
“we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-
finder,” Knox, supra at 754, we must affirm the determination of the trial
court.
-7-
J-S02017-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/27/2016
-8-