Com. v. Cruz, J., Jr.
1728 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- James R. Cruz, Jr. was convicted of criminal homicide and theft in 1994 and sentenced to life; trial evidence included microscopic hair comparisons implicating Cruz.
- FBI Agent Chester Blythe testified at trial using microscopic hair analysis to link hairs from the victim and Cruz to the crime.
- Years later the DOJ, after an FBI review prompted by the Innocence Project, issued a 2015 letter criticizing aspects of Blythe’s testimony as exceeding the scientific limits of microscopic hair analysis.
- Cruz received the DOJ letter and filed a second PCRA petition asserting the letter constituted a "newly-discovered fact" excusing his otherwise untimely petition.
- Cruz’s conviction became final in 1996; his second PCRA petition was filed well beyond the one-year statutory limit and therefore untimely unless an exception applied.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition under Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1); the Superior Court affirmed, holding the DOJ letter was a new source of previously knowable facts, not a newly-discovered fact under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOJ letter qualifies as a "newly-discovered fact" to overcome PCRA time bar | DOJ letter revealed previously unknown deficiencies in Blythe’s testimony, so Cruz could not have discovered them earlier | DOJ letter merely recharacterized existing trial testimony and science through a new source and thus is not a new fact | Held: Not newly-discovered; petition untimely and properly dismissed |
| Whether PCRA court had jurisdiction to entertain the untimely petition | Cruz: exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) applies because of DOJ letter | Commonwealth: no exception applies because facts were available at trial | Held: No jurisdiction because no applicable exception; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (NAS study and similar reports are new sources of previously knowable facts, not "newly-discovered facts" for PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA courts lack jurisdiction over untimely petitions absent statutory exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA appeals and scope of record review)