J-S06015-25
2025 PA Super 42
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
AMIR KENNEDY :
:
Appellant : No. 298 WDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 16, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-CR-0002867-2022
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., LANE, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
OPINION BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: February 21, 2025
Amir Kennedy appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the
Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas on February 16, 2024. On
appeal, Kennedy challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
convictions. After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court comprehensively summarized the relevant evidence
presented during trial, fully supported in the record, as follows:
The instant case arises out of the shooting death of Jason
Raiford on July 3, 2022 in New Kensington, Pennsylvania,
Westmoreland County. Following an investigation, [Kennedy],
along with co-defendants: Elijah Gary, Da’Montae Brooks, Raquan
Carpenter, Braedon Dickinson, Avian Molter, and Jonathan Felder
were charged in connection with this incident. Specifically, on July
3, 2022, a criminal information was filed charging [Kennedy] with
the following offenses:
1. Criminal Homicide, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501(a);
J-S06015-25
2. Murder of the First Degree, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
2502(a);
3. Robbery−Inflict Serious Bodily Injury, in violation of 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(i);
4. Robbery−Threat of Immediate Serious Injury, in violation
of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(ii);
5. Aggravated Assault, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
2102(a)(1);
6. Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, in violation of
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a)(1);
7. Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Assault, in
violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a)(1);
8. Receiving Stolen Property, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
3925(a); and
9. Possession of a Firearm by a Minor, in violation of 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 6110.1(a).
On December 4, 2023, [Kennedy] proceeded to a jury trial
before [the trial] court along with co-defendants, Mr. Gary and Mr.
Brooks. …
During trial, Jason Kerr, of the City of New Kensington Police
Department, testified that on July 3, 2022, at 1:58 p,m., he
received a dispatch to the Valley Royal Court Apartments in the
city of New Kensington for shots-fired. Detective Paul Manke, of
the New Kensington Police Department, and co-affiant on this
case, testified that he also responded to the scene, and through
his investigation, he obtained security video from the Stop N Go
convenient store depicting [Kennedy] and his co-defendants prior
to the incident as well as video surveillance footage from the
Valley Royal Court Apartments depicting different angles during
the time of the incident. The Commonwealth introduced these
videos, as well as still images to establish a timeline of events and
to depict the events that ultimately led to the death of Mr. Raiford
and the events immediately following. The Commonwealth’s
theory at trial was that [Kennedy] along with his co-defendants
participated in a plan to assault and rob Mr. Raiford over a drug
-2-
J-S06015-25
debt owed to Mr. Gary whereby they cornered the victim in front
of a stairwell of an apartment complex; Mr. Gary attempted to
pistol whip Mr. Raiford but dropped the gun resulting in a scuffle;
and then [Kennedy], who was in possession of an AR-15 style
semiautomatic rifle, exited the apartment complex and began
shooting Mr. Raiford, killing him.
Forensic Pathologist, Doctor Jennifer Hammers, D.O.
testified that she conducted an autopsy of Mr. Raiford on July 4,
2022. Dr. Hammers indicated that Mr. Raiford died as a result of
gunshot wounds to his head, torso, and extremities. Specifically,
Dr. Hammers identified 11 gunshot-wound paths that were
distinct gunshot wounds. Dr. Hammers explained that the
extensive injury to Mr. Raiford's brain would have most likely
caused him to be immediately unconscious, and, therefore, unable
to have any willful type of movement. Further, Dr. Hammers
testified that given the level that his spinal cord was transected
at, it would cause Mr. Raiford to be unable to utilize the lower part
of his body, including his legs. Dr. Hammers testified that the
gunshot wound to Mr. Raiford’s head, as well as the two gunshot
wounds that struck his heart, would almost certainly cause him to
pass away. Additionally, Dr. Hammers confirmed that Mr. Raiford
had four independent entrance wounds on his back.
Detective Toad Roach, of the Westmoreland County
Detectives Bureau-forensic division, was qualified as an expert in
forensic crime scene analysis at trial. Detective Roach testified
that on the date of the incident, he responded to the Valley Royal
Court Apartments and began processing the scene. Through his
investigation, Detective Roach marked, measured, photographed,
and secured items of evidentiary value. Specifically, Detective
Roach testified that he recovered 12 spent cartridges, with two
additional cartridge casing located later. Detective Roach testified
that while processing the scene, he learned that a firearm was
located underneath a bush by the nearby Geo-Solutions building,
and he went to the location to photograph and secure the
evidence. Detective Roach testified that the firearm, a Smith &
Wesson M&P Model 15 Rifle, was in the fire position, and there
was a round in the chamber.
Corporal Creighton Callas, an enlisted member of the
Pennsylvania State Police and assigned as a firearm and tool mark
examiner at the Greensburg Regional Laboratory, testified that he
examined the firearm, discharged cartridge cases, and discharged
-3-
J-S06015-25
bullets that he received from Detective Roach. Corporal Callas
stated that he examined the Smith & Wesson semi-automatic rifle
that was submitted to him, and he confirmed that with a
semiautomatic weapon, you have to pull the trigger and release it
each time for the next subsequent discharge. Corporal Callas
testified that through his examination, he was able to identify all
of the discharged cartridge cases submitted to the submitted
firearm. Additionally, Corporal Callas indicated that he examined
both undischarged cartridges from the firearm that was submitted
and bullet fragments and determined that the undischarged
cartridges were consistent with the discharged cartridge cases,
and the bullet fragments were consistent with the type that would
have been from the firearm.
Mr. Carpenter, who was also charged with second degree
murder and related offenses in connection with this matter,
testified at trial. Mr. Carpenter’s testimony established that on July
3rd, he was at the Valley Royal Court Apartments “couch surfing”
before he went outside and was eventually met by Mr. Gary, Mr.
Molter, [Kennedy], Mr. Brooks, Mr. Felder, and Mr. Dickinson. Mr.
Carpenter stated that he sat with and talked to Mr. Gary on the
steps in the foyer when he heard someone say, Mr. Raiford is
coming. According to Mr. Carpenter, at this time, Mr. Gary
informed him that he was angry because Mr. Raiford was “strongarming him out of his money”, and “he wasn’t going to let him
keep spinning him out of his money[,] he wasn’t going to let him
burn him again”. Mr. Carpenter stated that guns were being
passed around, and Mr. Gary asked Mr. Carpenter for the gun
sitting next to him on the steps, and Mr. Carpenter handed it to
him. Mr. Carpenter testified that he knew that there was going to
be an altercation and since he had a personal relationship with Mr.
Raiford, he got up and left the building as Mr. Raiford was
entering.
Mr. Carpenter stated that after he exited, he observed from
outside the door, Mr. Felder, Mr. Brooks, Mr. Dickinson, Mr.
Molter, and [Kennedy] enter the building and someone said, “do
you got the money?”. Mr. Carpenter’s testimony established that
Mr. Raiford got aggressive, Mr. Gary punched him, they got into a
scuffle, the same gun that Mr. Carpenter handed to Mr. Gary
minutes earlier fell to the ground making a loud bang, and Mr.
Raiford began yelling to get off of him and reached for and picked
up the gun. According to Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Raiford stated, “Get
the fuck-get back”, while aiming the gun at everyone and moved
-4-
J-S06015-25
back in the direction of the door to exit. On cross-examination,
Mr. Carpenter confirmed that Mr. Raiford said “like what the fuck
is wrong with y’all, like, chill”.
Mr. Carpenter testified that he began to run away but he
stopped and observed Mr. Raiford angrily walking back towards
the parking lot before he was shot by [Kennedy]. Mr. Carpenter
confirmed that Mr. Raiford was not pointing the gun at [Kennedy],
but Mr. Raiford made eye contact with him, and [Kennedy] fired
a lot of rounds with most of the bullets hitting Mr. Raiford. Mr.
Carpenter confirmed that Mr. Raiford went to the ground pretty
quickly, and [Kennedy] continued to fire a couple of shots before
moving the gun away from Mr. Raiford’s body. At this time, Mr.
Carpenter testified that everyone ran out of the building and
scattered.
Detective Jason Napier, of the Westmoreland County
Detectives Bureau and co-affiant on this case, testified relative to
his involvement in this matter. Detective Napier stated that
following the incident he, along with Detective Manke, reviewed
the relevant video footage from the Valley Royal Coutt
Apartments. When asked whether Detective Napier believed that
the videos were consistent with a drug sale based upon his
training and experience, he testified, “not at all”. Rather,
Detective Napier testified that the videos were consistent with a
robbery. Detective Napier testified that on July 6, 2022,
[Kennedy] was apprehended after turning himself in at the New
Kensington Police Station, and on September 8, 2022, Mr. Gary
and Mr. Brooks were apprehended by the U.S. Marshals. According
to Detective Napier, he and Detective Manke interviewed Mr. Gary
at the City of Lower Bunell Police Department. During the
interview, Mr. Gary informed them that on the morning of July 3rd,
he was present at Mr. Felder’s residence in Arnold, along with
[Kennedy], and the three of them went to 108 McCandless Street
where they met up with Mr. Brooks, Mr. Molter, and Mr. Dickinson.
According to Mr. Gary, [Kennedy] retrieved a rifle from inside the
residence, and he stated that Mr. Brooks and Mr. Dickinson were
also armed with firearms at that time. Mr. Gary relayed that the
six of them left the residence on foot to “go down to the projects
to chill”, and on the way, they stopped at the Stop N Go.
During the interview, Mr. Gary stated that Mr. Raiford
arrived at the location, and as he owed Mr. Gary a hundred dollars
for crack cocaine, he was going to confront him. According to
-5-
J-S06015-25
Detective Napier, Mr. Gary told him that “before they bring him
back to me, meaning Jason Raiford, he said [Mr. CarpenterJ gave
me his gun in case he tried to make a run for it", and Mr. Gary
acknowledged to striking Mr. Raiford with the gun before it fell to
the floor. Detective Napier further stated Mr. Gary indicated that
he remained inside while shots were being fired, and then he and
Mr. Felder ran back to Mr. Gary’s residence. During the interview,
Mr. Gary allegedly stated that despite knowing detectives were
looking for him, he panicked and stayed with his girlfriend, his
godmother, and his sister before being picked up by the U.S.
Marshals.
[Kennedy] also elected to testify during the trial. [Kennedy]
testified that on the date of the incident, he went to the Stop N
Go store with Mr. Gary and Mr. Felder before walking to the
projects to “chill”. [Kennedy] testified that at that time, he was in
possession of a loaded rifle, which he previously purchased from
someone on the streets of New Kensington and carried for his
protection. [Kennedy] stated that he previously met Mr. Raiford a
week or two before the incident when he was with Mr. Gary, and
Mr. Gary told him that Mr. Raiford owed him money and he was
going to confront him about it. During the interaction, [Kennedy]
testified that Mr. Gary and Mr. Raiford got into an argument and
Mr. Raiford threatened to kill both Mr. Gary and [Kennedy].
During trial, [Kennedy] testified as to the events that
occurred on July 3rd leading up to Mr. Raiford’s death. On cross-examination, [Kennedy] confirmed that when he left the residence
where he was staying on the morning of the incident, he took his
loaded long rifle with him and he concealed it down his pants.
[Kennedy] confirmed that prior to Mr. Gary pistol whipping Mr.
Raiford, the video displayed him pulling out his gun and taking a
few steps forward. [Kennedy] claimed he did this because the
argument started escalating, and he could tell that something was
going to happen.
[Kennedy] stated that after the gun fell and Mr. Raiford was
coming towards him, he tried to push Mr. Raiford with his rifle and
then exited the building when he saw Mr. Raiford retrieve the gun
off of the floor. [Kennedy] confirmed that the video exhibits
depicted Mr. Raiford motion to Mr. Molter and Mr. Gary signifying
“come on, we’re done”. According to [Kennedy], he exited the
building because he was afraid, but he stopped to see if anyone
else was coming out. [Kennedy] stated that he saw Mr. Raiford in
-6-
J-S06015-25
the doorway holding the gun, swinging it back and forth outside
and inside of the building and yelling “watch out and move”.
[Kennedy] testified that in response, he continued to backup and
raise the firearm he was holding.
[Kennedy] acknowledged to shooting Mr. Raiford, but he
argued that he shot him in self-defense or defense of others
because he was afraid that Mr. Raiford would point the gun back
at him and possibly shoot him or Mr. Gary who was still inside the
building. [Kennedy] testified that after shooting Mr. Raiford and
retrieving the gun from him, he panicked and started running.
[Kennedy] confirmed that he threw the rifle in a bush, and while
he was running away, he stopped and changed his clothes.
Prior to jury deliberations, the Commonwealth orally moved
to dismiss Count Seven[, criminal conspiracy to commit
aggravated assault].
Trial Court Opinion, 4/17/24, at 1-8 (citations and unnecessary capitalization
omitted; emphasis in original).
On December 8, 2024, the jury returned a verdict finding Kennedy guilty
of all remaining counts. For the charge of criminal homicide, the jury
specifically found Kennedy guilty of second-degree murder. Sentencing was
deferred pending a pre-sentence investigation.
On February 16, 2024, the trial court sentenced Kennedy to an
aggregate term of 30 to 60 years’ incarceration followed by one year of reentry
supervision, plus restitution, costs, and fees. No post-sentence motions were
filed. This timely appeal followed.
Kennedy raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether the [trial court] erred in determining the
Commonwealth disproved [Kennedy]’s claims of self-defense and
defense of others beyond a reasonable doubt when [Kennedy]
attempted to flee the alleged “robbery” attempt before being
-7-
J-S06015-25
confronted by the decedent armed with a pistol aimed at his coactors and before the decedent advanced toward [Kennedy]?
2. Whether the [trial court] erred in determining the
Commonwealth produced sufficient evidence to convict [Kennedy]
of robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, and murder of the
second degree beyond a reasonable doubt when the
Commonwealth failed to elicit evidence that [Kennedy] entered
into an agreement to commit robbery or otherwise participated in
a robbery when [Kennedy]’s co-defendant, Elijah Gary, merely
confronted the decedent regarding a drug debt which resulted in
an altercation between multiple individuals from which [Kennedy]
fled before being confronted by the armed decedent?
Appellant’s Brief, at 2-3.
As both of his issues challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, we begin
by noting our standard of review:
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence is 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. The Commonwealth
may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial
evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record
must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be
considered. Finally, the finder of fact while passing upon the
credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced,
is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Gause, 164 A.3d 532, 540-41 (Pa. Super. 2017) (en
banc) (citation omitted).
-8-
J-S06015-25
Kennedy’s first argument is based on his belief that he acted in
justifiable self-defense or in defense of others. Therefore, according to
Kennedy, the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for first-
degree murder and aggravated assault.
As our Supreme Court has explained:
To prevail on a justification defense, there must be evidence
that the defendant (a) ... reasonably believed that he was in
imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and that it was
necessary to use deadly force against the victim to prevent such
harm; (b) that the defendant was free from fault in provoking the
difficulty which culminated in the slaying; and (c) that the
[defendant] did not violate any duty to retreat.
Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 55 A.3d 1108, 1124 (Pa. 2012) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted). “A defendant's subjective state of mind
does not establish the objective factor of the reasonableness of his belief.”
Id.
at 1125 (citation omitted). Further, it is for the trier of fact to determine
whether an individual’s belief was reasonable, whether he was free of
provocation, and whether he had no duty to retreat. See Commonwealth v.
McClendon,
874 A.2d 1223, 1229-30 (Pa. Super. 2005).
When an individual claims self-defense or defense of others, both of
which are subsumed under the justification defense, the Commonwealth has
the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not
committed in self-defense or in defense of others.
In order to disprove self-defense [or defense of others], the
Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt one of the
following elements: (1) that the defendant did not reasonably
believe it was necessary to kill in order to protect himself [or
-9-
J-S06015-25
others] against death or serious bodily harm, or that the
defendant used more force than was necessary to save himself
[or others] from death, great bodily harm, or the commission of a
felony; (2) that the defendant provoked the use of force; or (3)
that the defendant had a duty to retreat and that retreat was
possible with complete safety. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 505(b)(2). If
the Commonwealth establishes any one of these three elements
beyond a reasonable doubt, then the conviction is insulated from
a defense challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence where selfprotection [or protection of others] is at issue.
Burns, 765 A.2d at 1149 (some citations omitted).
Kennedy presents a series of assertions, which he frames as undisputed,
in his attempt to demonstrate the validity of his justification defense:
The evidence suggests it was Raiford, not Kennedy, that became
aggressive when confronted about a drug debt. It was Raiford who
armed himself, fervently waiving a firearm in the direction of
Kennedy and others. Although Kennedy attempted to retreat, he
feared he would be shot by Raiford if his back remained to the
agitated and unpredictable Raiford. [] Kennedy was therefore
justified in shooting [] Raiford to death for fear for his own safety
and that of others, which the Commonwealth has not sufficiently
disproven.
Appellant’s Brief, at 26-17.
The trial court addressed and rejected Kennedy’s justification argument
in its Rule 1925(a) opinion as follows:
The evidence presented by the Commonwealth at trial
established that [Kennedy] used deadly force on Mr. Raiford.
Although testimony and video exhibits established that Mr. Raiford
was also in possession of a firearm after retrieving it from the
ground, there was no evidence presented that Mr. Raiford directly
pointed the gun at [Kennedy] while he was outside of the building
or that his words or conduct showed an intent to shoot [Kennedy]
or the co-defendants. Rather the evidence appears to establish
that Mr. Raiford, although reactive, attempted to deescalate the
situation, and leave the premises further unscathed and without
further incident. The video exhibits depict Mr. Raiford waving the
- 10 -
J-S06015-25
gun around and attempting to leave through the front door of the
building heading in the direction of his car in the parking lot.
Mr. Carpenter confirmed that although Mr. Raiford seemed
angry, he was not pointing the gun at [Kennedy] when he exited
the building. Similarly, [Kennedy]’s own testimony established
that although fearful that Mr. Raiford may wave the gun at him,
Mr. Raiford was not pointing the firearm at him at the time he shot
him. Not only does the Commonwealth’s evidence demonstrate
that [Kennedy] could have safely retreated by continuing to run
away to escape danger, there is overwhelming evidence that
[Kennedy] was not free from fault in provoking or escalating the
altercation that led to the offense. The video evidence presented
at trial established that [Kennedy], along with his co-defendants
went to the Valley Royal Court Apartments on the date of the
incident armed with firearms. [Kennedy] confirmed that he was in
possession of a loaded long rifle, in which he concealed down his
pants. Mr. Carpenter also confirmed that guns were being passed
around.
Although [Kennedy] denies any plan to rob or assault Mr.
Raiford, Detective Napier’s testimony established that the video
exhibits were consistent with a robbery, and Mr. Carpenter’s
testimony established that he knew there was going to be an
altercation with Mr. Raiford. Video exhibits established that once
Mr. Raiford entered the building led by Mr. Felder, [Kennedy], Mr.
Brooks, Mr. Dickson, and Mr. Molter also entered the building. Mr.
Carpenter’s testimony established that someone asked Mr. Raiford
if he had the money, and the video exhibits depict Mr. Felder, Mr.
Brooks, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Molter, and [Kennedy] boxing Mr.
Raiford in at the stairwell. [Kennedy] confirmed that during the
interaction between Mr. Gary and Mr. Raiford, before the gun was
dropped, the video displayed [Kennedy] pull out his gun and take
a few steps forward. [Kennedy] also stated that after the gun fell
and Mr. Raiford was coming towards him, he tried to push Mr.
Raiford with his rifle. Mr. Carpenter’s testimony established that
Mr. Raiford said, “like what the fuck is wrong with y’all, like, chill”,
and [Kennedy] confirmed that the video exhibits depicted Mr.
Raiford motion to Mr. Molter and Mr. Gary signifying “come on,
we’re done”.
The Court finds that even if [Kennedy] was in fear for his
life or his co-defendant’s lives, he used more force than was
reasonably necessary to protect against death or serious bodily
- 11 -
J-S06015-25
injury. Video evidence established that after turning around
outside, [Kennedy] raised the gun, aimed it at Mr. Raiford, and
repetitively pulled the trigger fourteen times, while advancing in
on him. Mr. Raiford’s body was struck by at least eleven bullets,
four of which directly entered Mr. Raiford’s back.
Mr. Carpenter's testimony revealed that [Kennedy] fired a
lot of rounds, and Mr. Raiford went to the ground pretty quickly.
The video evidence depicts [Kennedy] continuing to shoot Mr.
Raiford multiple times while he laid nearly motionless on the
ground. Dr. Hammers’ testimony established that Mr. Raiford died
as a result of the gunshot wounds to his head, torso, and
extremities, with the gunshot wounds to Mr. Raiford’s head and
heart almost certain to be fatal. After shooting Mr. Raiford and
retrieving the gun next to him, [Kennedy] fled the scene, disposed
of the long rifle in a bush, and stopped and changed his clothing.
The gun that was in possession of Mr. Raiford and moved by
[Kennedy] and allegedly left in [Kennedy]’s discarded backpack
was never recovered. Although [Kennedy] asserts that he shot Mr.
Raiford in defense of his co-defendants, specifically, Mr. Gary,
video exhibits and testimony establish that Mr. Raiford was
already in the doorway of the building and was attempting to walk
in the direction away from the building and away from Mr. Gary
at the time [Kennedy] shot and killed him.
Trial Court Opinion, 4/17/24, at 11-14. We agree with the trial court’s
thorough reasoning.
Our review confirms the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence,
and the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt, to disprove Kennedy’s
justification defense. Raiford did not initiate the altercation. Rather, Kennedy
and his co-defendants, after arming themselves with multiple firearms,
cornered Raiford and demanded money owed to Gary.
Although Kennedy testified that he feared for his life, the fact-finder had
no obligation to credit that testimony. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 271
A.3d 452, 458 (Pa. Super. 2021). Kennedy focuses on Raiford’s possession of
- 12 -
J-S06015-25
a gun to support why he was in fear and could not retreat. However, by
Kennedy’s own admission, and the testimony of others, Raiford was only in
possession of the gun because Gary dropped his gun after attempting to hit
Raiford with it, and Raiford was only waving the gun around. There is no
testimony from Kennedy or anyone else that Raiford ever pointed the gun at
anyone or otherwise attempted to use the gun.
Even assuming, arguendo, that Kennedy was in fear, Kennedy fails to
explain how there was insufficient evidence based upon his justification
defense when the Commonwealth presented evidence that he shot Raiford a
total of eleven times, four of which were in the back. See Commonwealth
v. Smith, 97 A.3d 782, 787 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding the Commonwealth
can negate a justification claim by establishing a defendant “used more force
than reasonably necessary to protect against death or serious bodily injury.”)
(citation omitted). Because the Commonwealth disproved Kennedy’s
justification defenses beyond a reasonable doubt, Kennedy’s first sufficiency
challenge merits no relief.
In his second and final issue, Kennedy argues the evidence was
insufficient to support his convictions for robbery, conspiracy to commit
robbery and second-degree murder. Specifically, Kennedy argues the
Commonwealth failed to produce sufficient evidence that he engaged in a
robbery or conspired to do so.
- 13 -
J-S06015-25
Kennedy contends the Commonwealth did not prove that an agreement
existed to rob Raiford. Kennedy asserts there was no evidence that he was
aware Gary intended to confront Raiford. According to Kennedy, he was
merely present when a confrontation occurred between two other individuals–
Gary and Raiford–regarding an outstanding debt between those individuals.
See Appellant’s Brief, at 30.
The statutory definition of second-degree murder, commonly known as
felony-murder in Pennsylvania, provides:
§ 2502. Murder
...
(b) Murder of the second degree.—A criminal homicide
constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed
while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in
the perpetration of a felony.
…
“Perpetration of a felony.” The act of the defendant in engaging
in or being an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to
commit, or flight after committing, or attempting to commit
robbery, rape, or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of
force, arson, burglary or kidnapping.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(b), (d).
The robbery of Raiford was the predicate offense for the charge of felony
murder. Kennedy was convicted of robbery under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(i)
and (ii), which provide:
§ 3701. Robbery
(a) Offense defined.—
- 14 -
J-S06015-25
(1) A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of
committing a theft, he:
(i) inflicts serious bodily injury upon another;
(ii) threatens another with or intentionally puts
him in fear of immediate serious bodily injury;
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(i)-(ii) (bold in original). The offense of robbery,
similar to felony murder, also contains a predicate offense−theft.
Like felony murder, robbery does not require the completion
of the predicate offense, theft, but it does require that force be
utilized or threatened while in the course of committing a theft.
Indeed, the term “perpetration of a felony” contained in the
definition of felony murder is very similar to the phrase “in the
course of committing a theft” contained in the definition of
robbery. For all practical purposes, the phrase “in the course of
committing a theft” is the equivalent of the “in the perpetration
of” language found in the felony murder statute.
Commonwealth v. Austin, 906 A.2d 1213, 1221 (Pa. Super. 2006).
Finally, “[a] person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or
persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its
commission he ... agrees with such other person or persons that they or one
or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime ….” 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a).
A “conspiratorial agreement can be inferred from a variety of
circumstances including, but not limited to, the relation between the parties,
knowledge of and participation in the crime, and the circumstances and
conduct of the parties surrounding the criminal episode.” Commonwealth v.
Feliciano, 67 A.3d 19, 26 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (citation and internal
- 15 -
J-S06015-25
quotation marks omitted). “The conduct of the parties and the circumstances
surrounding such conduct may create a web of evidence linking the accused
to the alleged conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation omitted).
The facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Kennedy is guilty of second-degree
murder, robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. Kennedy’s claim that he
was merely present at the scene ignores our standard of review and disregards
a signification portion of the evidence in the certified record.
Instead, the evidence shows that after learning Raiford was at the
apartment complex, Gary informed his co-defendant’s of his anger over an
outstanding debt owed to him by Raiford; with this knowledge in mind,
Kennedy, along with other co-defendants, equipped themselves with firearms
to head over to confront Raiford. After confronting Raiford, including a demand
for the money, an altercation ensued eventually leading to Kennedy fatally
shooting Raiford eleven times. Based upon the testimony presented, the jury
could reasonably infer there was a conspiratorial design to commit the
underlying felony—the robbery of Raiford—of which Kennedy was a part.
As we find the evidence was sufficient to support Kennedy’s convictions,
we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
- 16 -
J-S06015-25
DATE: 02/21/2025
- 17 -
