Rides2Work Losses Denied: Pa. Court Upholds Tax Ruling on Carpool Startup Without Sales

### Pittsburgh Shooter’s Convictions Upheld on Drive-By Murder

Pennsylvania’s Superior Court affirmed Quentin Maurice Primus’s life sentence without parole for first-degree murder, plus 43-86 years for related shootings, rejecting claims the evidence was too flimsy. A jury convicted him of blasting 16 rounds from a gray Ford Fusion into a Pontiac on July 1, 2022, killing Darrian Davis and wounding two others. The three-judge panel ruled circumstantial evidence—like fingerprints, GPS data, and phone records—nailed Primus as the triggerman or accomplice beyond reasonable doubt.

The nightmare unfolded in Pittsburgh’s Hazelwood neighborhood when Primus’s Ford Fusion circled the victims’ car three times before the passenger unleashed hell: 16 shots from 9mm and .45 caliber guns shattered the Pontiac’s windows and riddled its body. Davis died from neck and chest wounds; survivors Jalen Yates and D’Andre Wells took hits to the neck, chest, and hand. Cops tracked the distinctive Fusion—missing mirror, odd antenna—via license plate readers, stopping it hours later with Primus behind the wheel, his mail, learner’s permit, paystub, and two phones inside. He admitted sole access to the car that night.

Legal questions boiled down to identity and evidence admissibility. Primus argued prosecutors failed to prove he fired or drove, claiming phone data put him elsewhere during the 12:41 a.m. barrage. The court disagreed, stressing circumstantial proof—like his fingerprints on the passenger window (positioned as if leaning out to shoot), GPS showing the Fusion circling the scene, phones linking to the car’s infotainment pre- and post-shooting, and texts placing him in Hazelwood—built an airtight case. Juries don’t need eyewitnesses or DNA; reasonable inferences from facts suffice, especially since accomplice liability covered driving too. Ballistics tied the 9mm bullets to Primus via a prior Munhall shooting where his Fusion was hit.

Primus also blasted admission of that Munhall incident—four days earlier, same gun, his car damaged there—as unfair prejudice. The court shot that down: Defense opened the door by cross-examining a ballistics expert on the gun’s “multiple incidents,” making rebuttal fair game to link Primus to the weapon without implying prior guilt. A limiting instruction told jurors to ignore any criminal vibe from Munhall, and appellate judges presume juries follow such guidance. No abuse of discretion; evidence stayed relevant, not character assassination under Pa.R.E. 404(b). Primus’s appeal crashed.