FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Wednesday, August 6, 2025
CAPTION: STATE V. GRUBBS
APPEAL NO.: C-240165
TRIAL NO.: B-2106544-A
KEY WORDS: EVID.R. 404 — MURDER — SELF-DEFENSE — COUNSEL — PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT — EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT
SUMMARY: While the admission of the still shot of a Facebook video portraying defendant and codefendant holding guns was admissible for impeachment purposes, the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the still shot to be published to the jury bearing a caption containing both violent and racially pejorative language, however, the admission of the still shot was harmless error as the State showed defendant was not prejudiced by its admission as, if it were excised, overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt remained to support defendant’s conviction.
The trial court did not plainly err by admitting evidence of other guns and drugs where defendant cannot show, if the evidence were excised, the outcome of his trial would have been different.
Defendant received the effective assistance of counsel as he cannot show that, had counsel objected to the evidence of other guns and drugs, there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different.
While counsel’s statements regarding defendant’s initial burden of production were unnecessary since it is the trial court’s duty to instruct the jury on self-defense, it did not amount to a deficient performance nor was it so prejudicial to defendant as to constitute the ineffective assistance of counsel; further, counsel did not misstate the law as to a defendant’s initial burden of proof.
The State’s calling defendant a “liar” on the record did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct where the statement was made based on defendant’s inconsistent testimony, and there was no prosecutorial misconduct where the State did not mischaracterize the forensic expert’s testimony that the decedent was not holding his gun when defendant used deadly force against him.
Defendant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the State’s evidence to refute defendant’s self-defense claim showed that defendant did not have a reasonable belief of imminent danger of which the only means of escape was the use of deadly force, and expert testimony refuted defendant’s claim that he shot the decedent after seeing the decedent draw his gun.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by MOORE, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and BOCK, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION READING COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
APPEAL NO.: C-240646
TRIAL NO.: A-2103186
KEY WORDS: SUMMARY JUDGMENT — EXPERT WITNESS — SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT — NEGLIGENCE — STANDARD OF CARE
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err in awarding summary judgment to a contractor in a negligence dispute on the basis that a settlement agreement entered into between plaintiffs and the contractor was a full and final agreement barring plaintiffs from raising claims for future damages.
The trial court did not err in awarding summary judgment to defendants in a negligence action involving downhill flooding allegedly caused by construction because plaintiffs failed to provide an expert witness that could testify to the standard of care.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, P.J.; BOCK and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.