Com. v. Clancy, J.
Com. v. Clancy, J. No. 1037 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 22, 2017Background
- On July 30, 2012, Javonn Eric Clancy shot Marquay Riggins multiple times as Riggins fled; Riggins died. Clancy fled, then surrendered Sept. 4, 2012.
- Clancy was tried for first‑degree murder and carrying a firearm without a license; the jury convicted him of first‑degree murder and the firearms count.
- At trial, evidence included eyewitness testimony, surveillance video, and cross‑examination showing Clancy’s Facebook profile name “Snitch‑Free‑Jay” and post‑shooting Facebook contacts with associates.
- The Commonwealth emphasized the Facebook moniker and argued Clancy’s conduct (flight, demeanor, shooting from behind) showed malice rather than provocation; it also characterized Clancy as “cold,” a “killer,” and “snitch‑free.”
- Clancy filed a PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutorial comments and use of the Facebook name; the PCRA court denied relief.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor’s arguments were permissible inferences from the evidence and responsive to defense theory, and (2) the Facebook evidence was admissible to show identity, state of mind, consciousness of guilt, and credibility; counsel had a reasonable strategy and no prejudice was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial remarks in closing (e.g., calling Clancy “cold‑blooded killer”) | Remarks were inflammatory, expressed prosecutor’s personal belief, prejudiced jury; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Remarks were fair argument based on evidence and proper inference (malice, demeanor); responsive to defense; not prosecutorial misconduct | Rejected — comments were permissible inference/oratorical flair; no arguable merit to ineffectiveness claim |
| Use of Facebook moniker “Snitch‑Free‑Jay” at trial and cross‑examination | Moniker functioned as character evidence, unfairly labeled Clancy and undermined manslaughter defense; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Clancy chose the moniker; evidence showed identity, state of mind, consciousness of guilt, and relevance to noncooperation culture; not character evidence; jury instructed properly | Rejected — admission/use was permissible for identity, state of mind, consciousness of guilt; counsel had reasonable strategy; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2011) (prosecutor may argue evidence leads to conclusion defendant is a murderer)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 701 A.2d 190 (Pa. 1997) (arguments about defendant’s “cold heart” permissible when tied to evidence of malice)
- Commonwealth v. Burno, 94 A.3d 956 (Pa. 2014) (prosecutor’s inference‑based statements during closing can be permissible)
- Commonwealth v. Capalla, 185 A. 203 (Pa. 1936) (older authority holding improper to state prosecutor’s personal belief calling defendant a “cold blooded killer”)
- Commonwealth v. Koehler, 737 A.2d 225 (Pa. 1999) (prosecutor may comment on credibility where supported by evidence and responsive to defense)
- Commonwealth v. King, 959 A.2d 405 (Pa. Super. 2008) (attire/slogans bearing anti‑snitch messages admissible to show motive/state of mind)