No. 102 March Term, 1979, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence on June 13, 1979, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Criminal Division, at No. CC7805838A.
John H. Corbett, Jr., Paulette J. Balogh, Asst. Public Defenders, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Robert E. Colville, Dist. Atty., Robert L. Eberhardt, Deputy Dist. Atty., Charles W. Johns, Asst. Dist. Attys., Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Eagen, C. J., and O'Brien, Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty and Kauffman, JJ.
Appellant Tyrone DeVaughn was convicted by a jury of murder of the third degree on March 1, 1979. The court of common pleas thereafter denied appellant's post verdict motions, and sentenced him to a prison term of ten to twenty years. On this appeal, appellant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence and one evidentiary ruling. We affirm.
The evidence adduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, see Commonwealth v. Bastone, 466 Pa. 548, 353 A.2d 827 (1976), establishes that: on October 4, 1978, the mother of Joseph Richards asked appellant to check on her son at the playground across the street from her house. At the playground, an argument ensued between appellant and Robert Tucker and his four brothers. Appellant threatened harm to them if they bothered Richards or appellant. During the argument, Robert Tucker attempted to leave the playground, but was prevented from doing so when appellant used a gun to shoot at him and the others.
The police were called and went to appellant's house. Appellant informed the police that a group in the playground was harassing him. When the police arrived at the playground, however, they learned that appellant had fired
a gun. Robert Tucker agreed to file a criminal complaint against appellant at the police station.
Robert Tucker left the police station approximately one hour after the shooting incident, and began to walk home along Buena Vista Street. On the way home he encountered appellant and Joseph Richards. Appellant then fatally shot Tucker.
Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence lacks merit. The jury clearly could have concluded on the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant was guilty of murder of the third degree. See ...