260 A.3d 272
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- Griffin Campbell was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and related charges for a 2013 Salvation Army thrift-store building collapse that killed and injured multiple people; he was sentenced to an aggregate 15–30 years in prison.
- William Hobson represented Campbell at trial and on direct appeal; this Court affirmed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied further review.
- Campbell filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, later amended by counsel, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on Hobson’s alleged conflicts of interest and Hobson’s failure to object to prosecutorial statements in closing argument.
- Conflict allegations included Hobson’s prior, limited representations of two witnesses (Frank Parker and Sean Benschop) and Hobson’s presence at the site and OSHA meeting such that he might be a fact witness.
- Campbell also argued the prosecutor vouched for witnesses, commented improperly on defense character witnesses, and appealed for sympathy for victims; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 intent to dismiss, dismissed the petition without a hearing, and Campbell appealed.
- The Superior Court affirmed, finding Campbell failed to show an actual conflict or resulting prejudice and that the prosecutor’s challenged remarks were permissible responses to defense argument.
Issues
| Issue | Campbell's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hobson’s prior contacts/representations created an actual conflict depriving Campbell of effective assistance | Hobson had divided loyalties and was a potential fact witness (site visits; attended OSHA meeting; prior representation of Parker and Benschop) | Hobson’s contacts were limited/transient; no active conflict shown; no evidence Hobson had material, noncumulative testimony; no adverse effect on representation | Denied. Campbell failed to prove an actual conflict or actual prejudice; PCRA court findings supported by record |
| Whether Hobson was ineffective for not objecting to alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Prosecutor vouched for witnesses, testified to facts not in record, attacked defense character witnesses, and appealed for sympathy — counsel should have objected | Prosecutor’s remarks were fair responses to defense attacks and inferences from the evidence; remarks were permissible or rhetorical | Denied. Statements were not improper in context; counsel not ineffective for failing to object |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 55 A.3d 1108 (Pa. 2012) (prejudice required for potential conflicts; prejudice presumed only for actual conflicts)
- Commonwealth v. Cousar, 154 A.3d 287 (Pa. 2017) (successive representation requires showing of prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Fontana, 415 A.2d 4 (Pa. 1980) (counsel’s personal involvement as material witness can create an actual conflict)
- Commonwealth v. Crispell, 193 A.3d 919 (Pa. 2018) (standard for showing actual prejudice and assessing totality of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. King, 57 A.3d 607 (Pa. 2012) (focus on whether counsel ‘actively represented conflicting interests’ and whether strategy was distorted)
- Commonwealth v. Turetsky, 925 A.2d 876 (Pa. Super. 2007) (three-prong ineffective-assistance test)