Com. v. Daszkiewicz, M.
1968 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- On Oct. 26, 2015 the victim went to Appellant Michael Daszkiewicz’s hotel room; an argument turned physical and the victim suffered knee and facial injuries; medical evidence and a SAFE exam documented bruising and a knee injury causing lost work.
- York City PD officers Kelly and Ebersole responded; Kelly remained with the injured victim while Ebersole spoke with Appellant. Ebersole was later not disclosed in reports provided to defense.
- At trial both parties testified; after both rested defense requested a missing-witness instruction for Officer Ebersole and sought the officer’s availability.
- Prosecutor later informed the court Ebersole was on indefinite medical leave from injuries in an unrelated crash; defense raised a Brady/prosecutorial-misconduct claim and sought dismissal.
- The trial court declared a mistrial sua sponte; Appellant moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds; the court denied the motion citing manifest necessity, and Appellant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Daszkiewicz's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mistrial sua sponte barring retrial violates double jeopardy | Trial court properly exercised discretion; manifest necessity existed | Mistrial was not requested; no extraordinary circumstances; less drastic alternatives (missing-witness instruction or dismissal) existed | Affirmed: mistrial was within court’s discretion and manifest necessity supported retrial |
| Whether trial court should have given a missing-witness instruction for Officer Ebersole | Ebersole was not uniquely available to Commonwealth; his expected testimony would be cumulative | Failure to disclose officer and his interactions prejudiced defense; instruction was appropriate | No instruction warranted: officer was not shown to be available only to Commonwealth and his testimony would have been cumulative |
| Whether dismissal for prosecutorial misconduct (Brady) was required | Dismissal not automatic; court may consider alternatives and dismissal is not a lesser remedy | Brady violation (failure to disclose Ebersole) justified dismissal | Dismissal was not required or necessarily appropriate; court reasonably rejected dismissal as remedy |
| Whether trial court considered less drastic alternatives before declaring mistrial | Court entertained argument on missing-witness instruction and dismissal and found them inadequate | Court failed to consider less drastic alternatives and should have preserved jeopardy | Court did consider alternatives and legitimately found them inadequate; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579 (1824) (origin of "manifest necessity" standard for mistrials)
- Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458 (1973) (broad discretion for trial courts in declaring mistrials)
- Commonwealth v. Kelly, 797 A.2d 925 (Pa. Super. 2002) (applying Perez standard and reviewing mistrial sua sponte for manifest necessity)
- Commonwealth v. Diehl, 615 A.2d 690 (Pa. 1992) (discussing manifest necessity and review standards)
- Commonwealth v. Boyle, 733 A.2d 633 (Pa. Super. 1999) (standards for missing-witness instruction)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 664 A.2d 570 (Pa. Super. 1995) (factors limiting issuance of missing-witness instruction)
- Commonwealth v. Manigault, 462 A.2d 239 (Pa. 1983) (describing adverse inference/missing witness doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 147 A.3d 7 (Pa. Super. 2016) (issues waived where appellant fails to develop argument)