Com. v. Blackwell, K.
Com. v. Blackwell, K. No. 575 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 14, 2017Background
- Kevin Blackwell and Patrick Benthin attacked Shawn Jackson and Anita Sheets at their apartment on March 3, 2015; they forced entry, threatened rape, and assaulted Jackson, who sustained serious injuries.
- Blackwell and Benthin were arrested; Blackwell was tried at bench and convicted of burglary, aggravated assault, terroristic threats, unlawful restraint, recklessly endangering another, criminal mischief, and conspiracy; he had earlier pled guilty to separate DUI counts.
- Trial testimony established prior “bad blood”: about one month earlier Jackson fought Benthin (and others) at Blackwell’s residence.
- On cross-examination, Jackson refused to identify two people who accompanied him to that prior fight, saying “I’d rather not say”; the trial judge treated this as an invocation of the Fifth Amendment and curtailed further questioning about their identities.
- Blackwell claimed on appeal that curtailing that line of questioning violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses; the trial court found the withheld identities only marginally relevant and the evidence against Blackwell overwhelming.
- The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, concluding the limitation on cross-examination did not violate confrontation rights and any error would have been harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether curtailing cross-examination about the identities of two men who accompanied Jackson to a prior fight violated Blackwell's confrontation right | Blackwell: exclusion prevented effective confrontation; identities were probative of credibility (age, size, motive) | Commonwealth/Trial Court: witness properly asserted Fifth Amendment; identities were marginally relevant and not necessary to assess motive or credibility; any error harmless | Court: No violation. Judge permissibly limited cross-exam; identities were only marginally relevant and any error harmless; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Yohe v. Commonwealth, 39 A.3d 381 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard of review for confrontation clause questions)
- Dyarman v. Commonwealth, 33 A.3d 104 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standards cited for confrontation issues)
- Rosser v. Commonwealth, 135 A.3d 1077 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (two-part test for limiting cross-examination under Confrontation Clause)
- Laird v. Commonwealth, 988 A.2d 618 (Pa. 2010) (discussion of confrontation and cross-examination rights)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (confrontation’s main purpose is effective cross-examination)
- Van Arsdall v. Kentucky, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (permitting reasonable limits on cross-examination; harmless-error framework)
- Fensterer v. United States, 474 U.S. 15 (1985) (Confrontation Clause guarantees opportunity for effective—not unlimited—cross-examination)
- Molina v. Commonwealth, 33 A.3d 51 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (harmless-error analysis applied to asserted Fifth Amendment violations)