Com. v. Balcacer, W.
2002 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- Appellant Wandalee Balcacer was charged with attempted criminal homicide and criminal conspiracy related to a 2015 stairway shooting; theory: she enlisted co-defendant Tony Edwards to shoot victims over a drug debt.
- Appellant was tried jointly with Edwards; a jury convicted her of one count of Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Homicide on September 19, 2016.
- Sentenced November 8, 2016 to 15 to 40 years’ imprisonment; timely appeal followed.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders/Santiago brief and petition to withdraw, concluding the appeal was frivolous; Appellant did not file a response.
- The Anders brief raised three issues: (1) admission of a Facebook message used to impeach Appellant, (2) cross‑examination questioning about whether Appellant was constantly committing crimes, and (3) prosecutor’s closing remark disparaging defense counsel.
- The Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago, conducted an independent review, and affirmed the judgment of sentence while granting counsel’s withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admission of Facebook message as impeachment | Commonwealth used a Facebook message to impeach Appellant and show manipulative intent relevant to conspiracy | Balcacer argued it was improper character evidence under Pa.R.E. 608 and prejudicial | Admission was not an abuse of discretion: message was relevant to culpability and defense, and witness later admitted authorship, eliminating prejudice |
| 2. Cross‑examination asking if Appellant was "always" breaking the law | Commonwealth argued cross‑examination of credibility and prior bad acts was permissible | Balcacer argued the question elicited impermissible bad character evidence contrary to limiting instruction | Issue waived for appeal because defense made no contemporaneous objection at trial |
| 3. Prosecutor’s closing remark about lawyers "feed you bullshit" | Commonwealth argued closing argument was not evidence and was addressed by trial court instruction | Balcacer argued comment violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel and warranted mistrial | Trial court sustained objection, denied mistrial, gave cautionary instruction; Superior Court found no prejudice and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standard for counsel withdrawal on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania requirements for Anders brief)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural mandates for counsel seeking withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Tukhi, 149 A.3d 881 (Pa. Super. 2016) (appellate court’s duty to independently review Anders appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Rashid, 160 A.3d 838 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standards for admissibility and abuse of discretion review)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470 (Pa. 2014) (presumption that jurors follow curative instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 626 A.2d 109 (Pa. 1993) (trial court’s discretion on mistrial)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24 (Pa. 2011) (remedies after prejudicial evidence, including cautionary instruction or mistrial)