Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Taaj Qaadir Blan, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania

Supreme Court briefDec 3, 2025

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

______

DEC 0 3 2025

in the

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Taa^ QaaAkP VS\oeC\

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

Pe'ctcxsyWwxxQ . — RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

--------------—

Ve.v\wsy\Ma.v\\a

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(Your Name)

----------- —

(Address)

\^\oy\&t\\j\\\e .VA \GX3A--------(City, State, Zip Code)

Ma ____

(Phone Number)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS

DISCRETION BY NOT SEVERING THE TRIAL OF BLAN FROM THAT OF

HIS CO-DEFENDANTS WHERE BLAN WAS CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE

AND THE CO-DEFENDANTS WERE CHARGED WITH SIGNIFICANTLY

LESS SERIOUS OFFENSES?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

YES

LIST OF PARTIES

[ ] AB parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[yf'AB parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as foBows:

\ cxcx\> Qac*.^

Xv\v>6\<£ A)0.

SC\ VoxesV

X^G u3oo^\a<\3>

AMt. ScAo.vrXO'cx 2A

« fcrtXckxx 3. GoXXc^ex

x PA \G^<A

A\j< . Sc^a<\Xvx\ PA

RELATED CASES

• Covwvxo^^exxXW \/.

(AckoAXx ^\<aV\ ' Mo. GX /A^A

C_ocx\.

• COvAvvA0\>kA)^u\Vv\ \J.

VA.

.to^V

(

/Aosca

^\ats ^0.

MAA ^^5

seQ\w\^ XSacaS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

'......................................

JURISDICTION

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

................................................

CONCLUSION

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B V>eC\S\ov\

appendix c

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

S\a\e Vf\oX

TABLE OF CITATIONS

PAGE

CASE LAW:

Commonwealth v, Collins,

703 A.2d 540 (Pa. 1997).tv4

Commonwealthv, Grillo.

917 Aid343 (Pa. Super. 2007),..,....^.......... C\

Commonwealth v. McCIusker,

292 A.2d 286 (Pa. 1972).,

............

Commonwealth v. Moses.

241 A.3d 366 (Pa. Super,2020)....,,...... \3

Commonwealth v, Scott

389 A.2d 79^(Pa. 1978)

...... ........

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:

Rule582........

Rule 583...... .........

...

..........

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

[ ] reported at--------------------- ---------------------- ---------------> or’

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported, or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix-------the petition and is

[ ] reported at---------- ----------------------------------------------- » or’

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix A to the petition and is

reported

PA Sufefr.VkPiAbleidsW

or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ 1 is unpublished. _____

The opinion of the------------:---appears at Appendix

— to the petition and is

reported at

--------------- ; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

court

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date: ---------------------------- , and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix-------- [ ] An pxtension of timp to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including

(date) on-------------- —----- (date)

in Application No.

A----------

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

Sjf For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix C.-----

13.0^5

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

■

, and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix----- .

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

tn and including

(date) on---------------------------------- (date) in

Application No.---- A----------The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Co^VVa\o^ x AvM'fxAttxuA- G *

ck'ooxX

OVk

Ax 2lO3?> t %\gx\ xx>e\% co^M\C\e6

X<xcX ^eXose Wt \Xox\osc£o\s. XW<xs^<xse\

■VoWoxatf^

CoosV oX

VWjXe. 0s* \\xe VckC^CKuaaxvcxCK

Cowwoxx We<xs 1OX WK6es \xx XXx^Aox^ \ie%xee A<xcx\\<xs\eA

•Vos Xt\xee(,B>X 6ohSS^kD\Xt\ ex

<Xo^ Xc^kexx

So\t^

kJO\X\\ S^sS &e\<oesc&\o,os x &us\v^ <c\x\cXx Yxxsxe. TC\u\\\9\^

km\sx^>Sts <uoes^ Vve5ev\eA. 0v\ hJoxjewX^ \

*Ju&<^e

vcto^Xe ^evXevxcek \S\oxx \o ex Se^Xexxce oX eX^XxVeetxQ^ a-g

Reiss' xsxcavcexoX'Xoss.

Tne cXxcxs^eS S\exx\Kv>e& Xsovvx oxx XsxCx^esX \x\ xaHcXx

VS\ok\ vjoos^ <jo\Xv\ Xxxs \eew \^>s6Wex

w\eeX vo\^ occx

\^x^\^x)dX xjo\xo xjoos s^xv^ wxc^x^caxxck \o\xxS \>so%xes

(\weS xkxx?\\ xxWkxx \\\S XxSoWx^S o-xxS Vncxxxxx^ ^soXAexvxs \v\

Kxxcxx ^*e> x\\cS\\\\^mq\ xjo<xs ^^seaSfxSxsx^Xxxs’x Wx& XeXxxx0^

Ve, %\xok>\&

X\\\x\

Xok Ws

Ccx\tXG\. \5\cxs\ OOx c& Covxcessx

VsO^'xxx^ \<c> sesG^e,

%£\x&V\

\x\qx^kqs % cSscm^, \xxs \^sc^xs£S

\V>t Xsx&sixk'o&s \\OSV\C

\x\ Cxx^ (SMx^X- \fe. QS^Ss

S\xdoS'fc^ &CMJSX>

^CKx GKS\^'x\N% Cj\ \<Nt \\OVX\t Xtxe oXtxtV xSx^xxix^oX

O^sooc\xe6

x^^xeXt \xx CXV\

cxtx& (X^sessxxje

Xsxos^x^s. \S\c>.w \<\^j Ve> coXxsx \X\t S^OoXA^ Acajoxx^

'b'jV \X co,?\XtasMe.& \e> esccXo\e.

?e^v>€\ ^\kx\w\ov\S Xwqx^

\s\^\\j\6'oc>X x

CowW\^\S /\WAo&\S\^^Vnc^

" oXs ca?v X^cxxXs cos. V \x\q^\

Vxc wcxS.

%s \<\% \\Xe o^& x\q>\ s^se \xgmo \g escexse ^\<xvs v?b<Sxx,e<S

C£x\<\£/& X\\^asxs\ %xcX\\c Vo& oAxtwse. \o

Vvs

gs\& XcXcj^ ^XxqA

CowceoX

XvsX, \S\c>x\ o&ew&\e6

^X\C ^QC£Sx\ \x'^W\<X

\esW^ cX>caA

Xx\% OboS'tfX \xx ^Xx-XCkX^XwCx ^A. V<\S

Qo^s>s\ vxxxs x?xv>\^k^<S ckx>X X'oxx^x

\v\X \o\XVXwx ^\<AVe ooos

\^\cxw OdcxvX’tX \a

Skw^S-

cxs

<j?\excc>SXcA\ x \\<

\o "oxs \\\w\ ou\’\

e^ec\ W\t>se

^o^s\xcxk wxXxww X^xka^Xxxs Oojxs \wC\Xe^ X^eaxosc

Sx'wXosi'^ \(i XxS xecfc^ VjocsxaA^xc CX^boV \\xs

Cboswx f \>xAc «)CxS XxSGkX^^^A ^0W\ Xowx^Sjb Ck^Xo^CjbV^vv>bX\kKJe<SS>X\.

bo<\w% XA\\bescW<bvxs

de^v^Xcycx c&

CvoxA^s \\\

Xv\c

Xc^e>^s*

oX Wto. \w \tx& Xb\c>sxs (Xxxsx

%C\X - X^XexxS^ oocxs <x Xa.cXc^ \g \^c CovxSxAes^d

\x\ X^\ev\^\\<\^\^GSx<c ^o<>vx%e\ osNXe6

X\xc>X

k^xV^'xfc^ \G \^e S?SOJ\Xe.6 \o Xv\tW\ \W kx5X\X;\\\<^ £\<^

xjb^\x.’’Xxxc CoosX- cSevxQxS Vv\\% ^e%<oe^\- w&\\

wo v^xos) \ww\yyyo

w^xcex s\^\\^w

woysx?^

X) yo

w\ ^SOS ^wxj\^Xx\xX&\\satfb

^ox^\S\xX\_

o\ooy>

•c^\n^ S^xS^v ‘sm' s\ ^c^\6^s

y>oy^\wo swx^&^^o 9V5''o ' Sto'C' tyt. V>&\f ^0 p^xy^

%wcn ^x^o

yxwy^

wxxxw^Ssww^^

\X)9W^W> AjO QWvVOCnO'^p

\^W\\y \/ ' \X>a^Y)

S^\%%W\SW9^ SWt' \% ^X^xsy WO

^X^\’ ‘V^W^ -\yx<X)

io^xo wo 'owo\cx^x s\tfYn

^owo<y\<5 ^vww^swx^^

• hm'0\

^xwxyo

SQOS

Vx*x&\\ y

A^o^p ^o \XQ \Y^\i XO WN

^VA’xw/xa s*\^303<\

S$\ po'wop oxoro Xxxx^w^wxc^oX 'x\0\wpo V>\9^

0X\\ %W\crx^OX

%xttJ\yp\W \p\>X ~ VSO^

Woyx\ SW>\\ yo^^s wovyorwyswy yo\\\ w>x ?owo M^Xb'^S

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY

NOT SEVERING THE TRIAL OF BLAN FROM THAT OF HIS CO

DEFENDANTS WHERE BLAN WAS CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE AND THE

CO-DEFENDANTS WERE CHARGED WITH: SIGNIFICANTLY :leSS:

SERIOUS OFFENSES.

Rule 582 ofthe: Pennsylvania of Criminal Procedure provides as follows:

Rule 582. Joinder-Trial of Separate Indictments or Informations

(A) Standards

(1) Offenses charged in separate indictments or informations may be

tried together if:

(a) the evidence of each of the offenses Would be admissib1 e in a.

separate trial for the other and is capable of separation by the jury so that there is

no danger of confusion; or

(b) the. offenses: charged are based on the. same act or transaction.

(2) Defendants charged in separate indictments or informations may be

tried together if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction

or in the same- series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses.

These provisions aremodified by the next rule, Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal

Procedure. 583, which provides:

Rule 583. Severance of Offenses or Defendants

The court may order separate trials of pffenses or defendants, or provide

other appropriate relief, if it appears; that any party may be prejudiced by offenses

or defendants being tried together.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Commonwealth v, Collins. 703

A..2d 540 (Pa. 1997), has balanced these provisions to form a general-rule for

determini ng when severance of tri als would be appropriate, holding that, when a

defendant moves: to sever offenses from a co-defendant, the court, must

determine:

[ 1J

whether the evidence of each of the offenses would be admissible

in a separate trial for the other;

[2]

whether such evidence is capable of separation by the jury so as

to avoid danger of confusion; and, if the answers to these inquiries are in the

affirmative,

[3]

whether the defendant will be unduly prejudiced by the

consolidation of offenses.

Pursuant to this test, a court must; first determine: i f the evidence of each of

the offenses would be admissible in a separate trial for the other” Id. This question

of relative admissibility is a key one and should be weighed with the same rigor as

would be used to examine the- same evidence were it being offered at triaL

Commonwealth v. Grillo, 917 A.2d 343 (Pa. Super. 2007).

In the instant ease trial for Blan was joined with trial for three other

defendants, his mother, Margaret Delcastillo, his father, Angelo Smith, and his

father’s girl friend, Erica Searcy. Blan was charged with' criminal homicide. The

other three were charged with various misdemeanor offenses, specifically hindering:

apprehension, tampering with evidence, and obstructing the administration of law.

Following trial, Blan was convicted of Murder in the Third Degree and the other

three were acquitted of all charges against them.

None of the defendants faced the same charges as Blan. None of them were

even facing felonies, 'No conspiracy between, the parties was charged. What the joint

trial did do, however, was to create the impression among the jury that more was

going on than just the shooting that. Blan claimed was in Self-defense.

Blah’s case was for homicide. He was not charged with any other offenses.

Therefore the charges of the other three were hot consistent with his: trial. IfBlan

had: been charged., with similar offenses the Common wealth would have a better

argument for joinder, but the evidence used against the others was not consistent:

with, the charge Blah faced. It is notdisputed that some of the same evidence might,

have been available against Blan as the Commonwealth sought to show knowledge

of guilt or attempt to flee, but the totality of the cases were so dissimilar as to make

a trail for all four defendants unnecessary and prejudicial.

The charges against Blan’s co-defendants arose from the actions-and decisions

of all after the Simmons’ shooting. Testimony was that Blan went home and talked

to his father about what had happened. Over the course of the night Blan’s mother

arrived at the home as well. The next morning Blan left the home with Searcy, his

father’s girlfriend, while his mother left in a different car. The parties indicated that

it was their intention to have Blah go to; the police to turn himself in and explain

what had happened the night before. The car m which Blan was- driving: was pulled

over by police before it reached any destination, however it was on a path that would

lead it to the police station as the parties claimed was their intent.

Blan had the

firearm, with him when he was stopped, which he claimed was to be given to the

police when he turned himself in that morning.

The jury heard information about the family meeting and the alleged activities

of all the parties between the night of the shooting and the next morning. Much of

this evidence would not have been admissible simply against Blan for the homicide

charge he was facing., For instance, testimony was elicited about Blan’s father

standing: outside of the home before left doing yard work: in what was described as

a suspicious manner.

This: evidence: tended to show a guilty conscious on the

father’s part, which implies that guilt also lay with Blan. This evidence would not

have been relevant to Bian’S: case,. drily to that: of h'is father. Evidence was also

produced that B!an! s mother had: washed-his clothes the night of the: incident^ again

creating the itt^licatton fliat Blan. was attempting tohide the evidence of what: had

happened through his mother’s actions.

The actions of Bilan’s lath er, moth er and step-mother were: discus sed ih some

detail in. an attemptto establish their criminal- liability, Very little ofthis testimony

Wild have: been admissible soleiy against Blan :but. served to suggest :a: conspiracy

between the Ibur individuals that the jury could Well have taken as eyid^ce:efguilt,

agajinst Bilan;: While actual ^

make a|oint trial more appropriate,

there was no: conspiracy charged here at all, let alone regarding Blan, bat the

implication that was created was the' one existed. This was: highly prejudicial, to

Blan.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND: ABUSED ITS DISCRETIONBY

NOT ALLOWING BEAN: TO TESTIFY REGARDINGTHE HOMICIDE DEATH

OF HIS COUSIN IN THE WEEKS LEADING W TO THE DEATH BI THIS:

CASE: WHERE SUCH TESTIMONY WOULD HAVE HET.PED THE JURY TO'

UNDERSTANp: BLAN ’ S' STATE OF MJNDAND ACTIONS ON THE DATE IN

QUESTION.

At trial, Blan presented a defense involving a claim of self defense. He also

raised a claim for imperfect self-defense based on the victim’s erratic behavior,

threatening words, claims of gang affiliation and Blan’s belief that the victim had a

firearm. The fact that the victim, despite his words, did not have a firearm led the

jury to reject straight out self-defense, but they spent numerous hours in deliberation

deciding between third degree murder and voluntary manslaughter as they wrested

with that question over a two (2) day period.

Blah testified on Day 3 of the trial.: He gave his- version of the events that led

to; Simmons’ death and the aftermath of the same. He talked about his fear arid

uncertainty and what led him to pull the trigger on that night.

Three weeks prior to the death in; this case Blan had been to the funeral of his

cousin in. Philadelphia. His cousinhadbeen murdered and, prior to the shooting, the

killer had said that he was going to “air him out’\ It was the position of the defense

that this incident went, a long way to add to Blan’s state of mind on the night in

question., especially since very similar \vords used by a killer were fresh in his mind

at the time.

When counsel began to ask about, this incident the Commonweakh objected

(N.T., 8-3-23, p. 49). Counsel explained the testimony that was to be presented and

its intended purpose in helping to show his state of mind during the incident (N.T.,

9-3-23 , 49-54). The Commonwealth argued relevancy under Rule 403, as well as

hearsay, but B:1 an argued that it was allowable for state of mind and was not hearsay

because it wtas to show an effect op him regardless cf its veracity,

The Judge

allowed ^ery limited0 inquiry into the issue but then interjected without further

objection to cut off counsel’ s questioning on the matter before he could get to the

language: about airing the victim out (N.T., 8-3-23, p, 55).

Evidence is relevant if it tends to establish a material fact or make a fact qt

issue more or less probable. Commonwealth v. Mdses. 241 A.3d 366 (Pa. Super,

2020).

Where an actor kills under an unreasonable fear that he is in danger of

serious bodily harm the offense may constitute voluntary manslaughter even where

a specific intent tq kill exists. Commonwealth y, Scott 389 A 2d 79 (Pa 197R) As

such the state of mind of the actor is key and evidence should be admitted to establish

such state of mind. . In such a matter, any evidence, even psychiatric evidence but

including lay evidence as well, to show such state of mind must be admissible;

Commonwealth v.,McClusker, 292 A.2d 286 (Pa. 1972).

At trial: Blan was able, to talk: about his fear in the moment, that he believed

Simmons to be gang affiliated and that his behavior was erratic and threatening. He

was not able to add one more crucial piece, however, that the: very words that

S immons 'used to; threaten him: were identical to words he Understood to be used by

an assailant beforehe took the life ofBlan’s cousin mere weeks before. It is hard to

think of a more direct insight into Blah’s state Of mind at the time of the shooting

and yet the jury was precluded from hearing ft. This is reversible error such that

Blan is entitled to a new trial.

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS

DISCRETION BY NOT SENDING OUT A PRINTED COPY OF THE

JUSTIFICATION/SELF-DEFENSE INSTRUCTION ALONG

WITH THE

CHARGES WHEN THE JURY REQUESTED A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF

THE COUNTS AGAINST BLAN AND A DEFINITION OF MALICE:

During the charging conference Blan ;argued that the jury should he charged

regarding imperfect self-defense. After lengthy argument before the Court, during

which the Commonwealth objected to the charge, the Court: determined that the

evidence presented did justify a charge regarding imperfect self defense and the

inclusion of a charge of voluntary manslaughter.

The jury deliberated for a period oil August 3 but then were sent home and

deliberations began anew on August 4, After a period of time foe juiy sent out two.

questions which focused on the specifics of the law.. First they asked for the

language of the charges against Blan. Secondly they asked for a written definition

of Malice. Counsel for Blan argued that if a definition for malice Was being sent

out the. court should also send- the definition for self-defense, since a. decision

regarding this was necessary as: a part of determining malice (N.T., 8-4-23. pp. 5-7).

Blau s position is that by sendingout malice without the self-defense language,

also, necessary for an evaluation of the situation, the jury was effectively being told

that they did riot need to consider seif-defense when looking atmalice. They should

have been given all o f .the factors to be considered and which were relevant to their

deliberations.

-fortes, by their nature, are made up of ci tizens of the communi ty who by and

large do not have a. sophisticated understanding of the. law. To take their request -for

a definition of malice, literally without providing the. necessary legal context to that

question Is to give, the jury credit for specific legal knowledge that: they do not

inherently possess, in fact, later in the deliberations the jury did ask another question

regarding the elements of self-defense and.at that: point they were: given a written

descripti on of the charge (N.T., 8-4-23, pp. 7-9).

The delay between the providing of the definition of malice in. writing and the

definition of self-defense in-writing was unnecessary and prejudicial, For a period:

of several, hours during their deliberations the jury was in. a position where malice

was highlighted and in the forefront of their minds but self-defense was i n the back

seat-

As a result the language: of self-defense justification was: not foremost

compared to malice: during a significant point of deliberations, thereby creating: the

implrcatibri that it was of a lower level of import than what tlie jury had in writing

before them.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.