Com. v. Christine, J.
337 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 3, 2018Background
- In June 2009, inmate Jacob Christine allegedly slashed fellow inmate Thomas Misero’s neck and ear with a razor in a multi-occupant cell at Northampton County Prison; a different shank was recovered hidden in Christine’s bed. Christine testified Misero attacked first with a razor and he disarmed Misero, and any cutting was accidental.
- A jury convicted Christine of aggravated assault and recklessly endangering another; he received 9–20 years. Direct appeals resulted in an evenly divided Superior Court affirmance and ultimate Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmance of the conviction.
- Christine filed a timely PCRA petition (Feb. 2016) raising Brady/prosecutorial-misconduct, Rule 600 speedy-trial, ineffective assistance for failing to object under Pa.R.E. 404(b), failure to raise a Mooney claim, failure to request a "castle doctrine" instruction, and failure to admit photographs of his injuries.
- At the PCRA hearing, Christine alleged a secret deal between ADA Mulqueen and witness Dan Rice (who later sought PCRA relief in his own bank-robbery case). Mulqueen invoked the Fifth when called at the PCRA hearing; investigator testimony and Rice’s plea/sentencing record contradicted proof of a pretrial deal.
- The PCRA court found Christine offered no competent evidence of a pretrial promise to Rice (Brady/Mooney), properly calculated Rule 600 exclusions, the 404(b)/shank admissibility issue had been litigated on direct appeal (and affirmed by the Pa. Supreme Court), and trial counsel had reasonable strategic bases for challenged choices; the PCRA petition was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Christine) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady / Prosecutorial misconduct re: witness Rice | ADA Mulqueen secretly promised Rice a sentence reduction in exchange for testimony; suppression undermined trial fairness | No competent evidence of a pretrial promise; Rice’s later PCRA relief occurred after Christine’s trial and does not prove a pretrial deal; Mulqueen denied promises at trial | Denied — no Brady violation proven; PCRA petitioner failed to meet burden |
| Rule 600 speedy-trial | Trial delayed 447 days from complaint; counsel ineffective for not moving to dismiss | Court excluded multiple periods (prelim. hearing delays due to defendant’s unavailability/transfer, outstanding pretrial motions, agreed continuances); adjusted run-date not violated | Denied — proper exclusions totaled 230+ days; no Rule 600 violation and no counsel ineffectiveness |
| Admission of shank (Pa.R.E. 404(b)) | Trial counsel ineffective for failing to lodge a Rule 404(b) objection to shank evidence | Counsel objected on relevance/prejudice grounds; issue litigated on direct appeal and affirmed by Pa. Supreme Court as admissible to show ability/access to fashion weapons | Denied — claim previously litigated and counsel’s objections adequate; no ineffective assistance |
| Failure to request castle-doctrine instruction / jury charge errors | Counsel should have requested castle instruction for self-defense in cell; trial judge misspoke in charge, prejudicing defense | Castle doctrine amendment postdated trial and does not extend to shared prison cells; jury charge, read as a whole, accurately conveyed law and no prejudice shown | Denied — no basis to extend castle doctrine to multi-occupant cell; any transcriptional slip was harmless and counsel not ineffective |
| Failure to introduce photos of defendant's injuries | Photos would have shown defensive wounds corroborating self-defense | Photos were low quality and of dubious value compared to victim’s severe injuries; counsel may have had strategic reasons; no prejudice shown | Denied — tactical choice with no reasonable probability of different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of favorable evidence violates due process when material to guilt or punishment)
- Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935) (prosecution may not obtain a conviction by deliberately deceiving the court or jury)
- Commonwealth v. Christine, 125 A.3d 394 (Pa. 2015) (Pa. Supreme Court review of shank admissibility; alternative theories of relevancy upheld)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (mere conjecture about a prosecutor-witness agreement insufficient for Brady relief)
- Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693 (Pa. 2012) (Pa. Rule 600 and the mechanical/adjusted run-date analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Ramos, 936 A.2d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2007) (due diligence and excusable delay principles under Rule 600)