Com. v. Bennett, A.
2584 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 26, 2017Background
- Antoine Bennett was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder, robbery, and weapons offenses for the November 30, 2005 shooting death of Moses Walker; he received life imprisonment on the murder count.
- Bennett filed a timely direct appeal; the Superior Court affirmed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 2008.
- Bennett filed a timely pro se PCRA petition in 2009, later amended by counsel, raising multiple ineffective-assistance claims about trial and appellate counsel; the PCRA court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing in August 2016.
- Key trial events underlying the claims: (1) a detective began to reference a photograph number during a witness ID exchange; (2) a witness statement allegedly included “Twan had just gotten out of jail”; (3) disagreement about whether the prosecutor violated a stipulation to omit incarceration references; (4) denial of an involuntary-manslaughter jury instruction request; (5) prosecutor’s closing comments defining coercion in interrogations; (6) late disclosure and opinion from a ballistics expert (Brady/Frye issues); (7) alleged two-step interrogation and Miranda/warnings issues regarding Bennett’s confession.
- The PCRA court applied the Pierce ineffectiveness framework, found each claim either meritless or non-prejudicial (and/or previously litigated), and concluded no hearing was required; the Superior Court affirmed on that basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bennett) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reference to photo number and motion for mistrial | Reference implied prior police contact/criminal history and warranted mistrial; counsel ineffective for not raising on appeal | The reference was to a photo number only, no police file or mug-shot testimony; any inference was speculative and not prejudicial | Denied — no arguable merit or prejudice; counsel not ineffective |
| “Twan had just gotten out of jail” / stipulation violation | Passing reference to incarceration violated stipulation and prejudiced jury; counsel ineffective for failing to preserve/raise on appeal | The reference was fleeting, unclear, non-specific as to reason for incarceration, and not shown to be intentional misconduct by prosecutor | Denied — passing remark lacked arguable merit and prejudice |
| Denial of involuntary manslaughter instruction | Evidence supported a reckless/grossly negligent theory (struggle) and counsel ineffective for not raising instruction on appeal | Killing occurred during an armed robbery; evidence supported felony/felony-murder, not involuntary manslaughter | Denied — no reasonable basis that instruction was warranted |
| Prosecutor’s closing on coercion | Prosecutor misstated facts de hors the record; counsel ineffective for failing to object | Prosecutor’s remarks were a fair response to defense closing that alleged coercion; comments were argumentative, not factual misstatements | Denied — remarks were proper response and not prejudicial |
| Ballistics opinion / Brady and Frye claims | Late disclosure of ballistics report (Brady) and admissibility of ballistics opinion (Frye) prejudiced defense; counsel ineffective for failing to object on these grounds | Ballistics methodology is not novel (Frye inapplicable); report was inculpatory (defendant had confessed he used a Hi-Point), and cross-examination had pointed out limitations; evidence not material in light of the record | Denied — Frye not implicated; no Brady violation or prejudice |
| Two-step interrogation / Miranda and suppression of confession | Interrogation process violated Miranda/voluntariness; counsel ineffective for not moving to suppress or preserving issue | Admissibility and voluntariness were previously litigated and rejected; claim lacks merit | Denied — claim previously litigated and meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Commonwealth, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (sets out three-prong ineffectiveness test)
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (novel scientific evidence must be generally accepted in relevant community)
- Commonwealth v. Nichols, 400 A.2d 1281 (Pa. 1979) (not all references to prior activity warrant reversal; passing references may be harmless)
- Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 596 A.2d 165 (Pa. Super. 1991) (police possession of a photo does not prove prior convictions; jury inference limited)
- Commonwealth v. Rios, 920 A.2d 790 (Pa. 2007) (defendant must show counsel’s act/omission affected outcome to establish prejudice)