Com. v. Chermer, B.
Com. v. Chermer, B. No. 128 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 14, 2017Background
- Defendant Beau W. Chermer and co-defendant participated in a violent home invasion in which the 81-year-old victim sustained severe brain trauma (subarachnoid hemorrhage) and other injuries; victim died 21 days later after hospitalization.
- Chermer pled guilty to 16 related counts (aggravated assault, burglary, robbery, multiple conspiracy counts, etc.) at Docket No. 1130-2012; he waived jury and elected a bench trial on the felony-murder charge (second-degree murder) at Docket No. 1125-2012.
- Forensic dispute: Commonwealth expert Dr. James Smith testified the assault set in motion a chain (stopped Coumadin, immobilization, thrombosis) leading to fatal myocardial infarction; defense expert Dr. Cyril Wecht testified the heart attack was not caused by the prior brain injury.
- Trial court convicted Chermer of second-degree murder and sentenced him to life without parole; the court also imposed consecutive aggregate terms (19–50 years) on three conspiracy convictions stemming from the same incident.
- Posttrial motions challenged double jeopardy (after an earlier mistrial caused by misdated photos), sufficiency and weight of the evidence on causation for murder, admission of rebuttal expert testimony, and legality of multiple conspiracy sentences. Court denied relief on double jeopardy, sufficiency, weight, and expert-admission claims, but agreed multiple conspiracy sentences were improper and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Chermer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retrial was barred by double jeopardy after a mistrial caused by prosecutor/photo authentication error | Retrial is permissible because Commonwealth promptly disclosed the error and did not act with intent to provoke mistrial or deny fair trial | Mistrial was prompted by prosecution misconduct; retrial is barred under double jeopardy protections | Trial court and Superior Court: no double jeopardy bar; Commonwealth's self-disclosure shows lack of intent to provoke mistrial; retrial allowed |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support second-degree (felony) murder (causation between assault and death) | The Commonwealth: expert testimony established an unbroken causal chain from beating to fatal myocardial infarction (cessation of Coumadin, thrombosis, complications) | Chermer: medical experts disagreed; the 21-day gap and preexisting cardiac disease break the causal link; evidence insufficient | Held: sufficiency claim rejected — court credited Dr. Smith’s testimony tying assault to death; conviction affirmed |
| Whether verdict was against the weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: trial court properly weighed competing experts and credited its witnesses | Chermer: verdict shocks sense of justice given expert conflict, lack of quantification, and DNR issues | Held: weight claim denied — trial judge’s credibility determinations upheld; verdict not against weight of evidence |
| Whether sentencing on multiple conspiracy counts for the same agreement was legal | Commonwealth: (implicitly) multiple conspiracy convictions warranted separate sentences | Chermer: 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(c) treats multiple offenses from same agreement as one conspiracy; sentencing on multiple conspiracies illegal | Held: Trial court erred; multiple conspiracy sentences vacated; remand for resentencing on a single conspiracy conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 120 A.3d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate standard for constitutional law questions)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 615 A.2d 321 (Pa. 1992) (double jeopardy protection extended where prosecutorial conduct intentionally prejudices defendant)
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1982) (federal standard requiring purposeful prosecutorial conduct to bar retrial after mistrial)
- Commonwealth v. Rementer, 598 A.2d 1300 (Pa. Super. 1991) (two-part test for criminal causation: but-for antecedent cause and no extraordinary remoteness)
- Commonwealth v. Long, 624 A.2d 200 (Pa. Super. 1993) (criminal responsibility where defendant’s conduct was direct and substantial factor in death)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard and deference for weight-of-the-evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (appellate review principles for weight challenges and deference to trial judge credibility findings)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 987 A.2d 638 (Pa. 2009) (expert opinion admissibility assessed by substance over form; reasonable degree of certainty standard)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 704 A.2d 650 (Pa. Super. 1997) (factors for determining single vs. multiple conspiracies)