Com. v. Baker, A.
764 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- In February 2012 Anthony Baker was involved in a street altercation in Philadelphia during which he produced a firearm and shot the victim; the victim died at the scene.
- A jury convicted Baker of first-degree murder, carrying a firearm without a license, and possession of an instrument of crime; sentenced to life without parole plus concurrent terms.
- Baker filed a PCRA petition; the court reinstated his direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc and he appealed.
- At trial the jury deliberated across multiple days and sent three notes indicating an impasse (including one using the phrase “hopeless deadlock”); the court denied mistrial motions, twice sent the jury back, and ultimately gave a Spencer charge after the third note.
- Baker also moved for a mistrial following an exchange where a defense character witness addressed the jury post-dismissal and the prosecutor asked (loudly, per Baker) for an admonition and curative instruction; the court gave an admonition and denied the mistrial motion.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) denying mistrials and giving a Spencer charge and (2) denying a mistrial based on the prosecutor’s conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying mistrial after jury reported deadlock multiple times | The Commonwealth: trial court appropriately managed deliberations and remedied any potential coercion | Baker: repeated jury notes ("hopeless deadlock" and foreperson saying no reasonable probability of unanimity) showed coercion and warranted mistrial | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court permissibly managed deliberations, provided breaks, and issued a Spencer charge before resuming deliberations |
| Whether prosecutor’s conduct in asking for admonition in front of jury required mistrial | The Commonwealth: prosecutor’s request for a curative instruction/admonition was appropriate response to witness’s improper remark | Baker: prosecutor shouted request in front of jury to diminish witness credibility, warranting mistrial | Affirmed — no prosecutorial misconduct requiring mistrial; court’s curative instruction/admonition was appropriate and not shown to have prevented a true verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Savage, 602 A.2d 309 (Pa. 1992) (mistrial decision is within trial court discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Greer, 951 A.2d 346 (Pa. 2008) (standards for assessing jury coercion and Spencer charges)
- Commonwealth v. Moore, 937 A.2d 1062 (Pa. 2007) (factors for length of deliberations and coercion risk)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 668 A.2d 97 (Pa. 1995) (deference to trial court on deliberation management)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 557 A.2d 421 (Pa.Super. 1989) (upholding return of deadlocked jury after breaks and Spencer charges)
- Commonwealth v. Jorden, 482 A.2d 573 (Pa.Super. 1984) (approving multiple Spencer charges where appropriate)
- Commonwealth v. Spencer, 275 A.2d 299 (Pa. 1971) (establishing framework for jury instruction to deadlocked juries)
- Commonwealth v. Bedford, 50 A.3d 707 (Pa.Super. 2012) (prosecutorial misconduct review standard)
- Commonwealth v. Culver, 51 A.3d 866 (Pa.Super. 2012) (example of prosecutorial misconduct causing prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24 (Pa. 2011) (remedies for spectator or witness misconduct)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Judy, 978 A.2d 1015 (Pa.Super. 2009) (standards for reviewing mistrial denials)
- Commonwealth v. Ragland, 991 A.2d 336 (Pa.Super. 2010) (same)