Com. v. Davis, R.
312 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 16, 2016Background
- September 26, 2011: Phillip Harrison was fatally shot in Pittsburgh; eyewitness Casey Pelton (neighbor) identified Rudy Davis as the shooter and later identified him in a photo array.
- Surveillance photos/videos showed a person wearing a dark sweatshirt, white T-shirt underneath, light jeans, and a cap chasing and firing at the victim; a silver Ford Taurus appeared in the footage.
- Davis was tried July 23–24, 2012, convicted of first‑degree murder and related firearm offenses, and sentenced to life without parole; direct appeals were denied.
- Davis filed a pro se PCRA petition (Aug. 15, 2015); counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and was permitted to withdraw; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition without a hearing (Feb. 5, 2016).
- Davis appealed pro se, raising four ineffective‑assistance‑of‑trial‑counsel claims; the Superior Court affirmed the PCRA denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davis) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Failure to object to references to a “high‑crime area” | References to the Hill District as a high‑crime area improperly suggested guilt by location and prejudiced Davis | References were not improper; defense also used the high‑crime context to argue reasonable doubt; video evidence supported jury assessment | Counsel not ineffective; no prejudice shown; claim denied |
| 2) Failure to object to testimony about victim’s prior uncharged shooting of Davis (404(b)) | Wallace’s testimony that Harrison shot Davis years earlier was an inadmissible prior bad act | Testimony was admissible to show motive (revenge); probative value outweighed prejudice | Counsel not ineffective for failing to object; evidence admissible |
| 3) Improper vouching via Detective Boose’s testimony | Detective’s testimony vouched for Pelton’s credibility and bolstered the Commonwealth improperly | Testimony explained investigation delay and responded to impeachment; permissible within bounds and not prosecutor opinion | Counsel not ineffective; testimony admissible to explain investigative conduct |
| 4) Failure to object to testimony that a possible witness (Jacquay Pascal) was killed | Testimony implied Davis was responsible for a prospective witness’s death, prejudicing jury | Testimony merely explained why police could not interview the car’s driver; it did not suggest Davis’s responsibility | Counsel not ineffective; testimony did not imply Davis caused the death and was admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for PCRA orders)
- Commonwealth v. Garcia, 23 A.3d 1059 (Pa. Super. 2011) (PCRA review principles)
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 5 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2010) (three‑part ineffective assistance test)
- Commonwealth v. Keaton, 45 A.3d 1050 (Pa. 2012) (prejudice standard for IAC)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 858 A.2d 1219 (Pa. Super. 2004) (counsel not ineffective for failing to object to admissible evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 986 A.2d 84 (Pa. 2009) (admissibility of statements explaining police conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d 1025 (Pa. 2007) (improper vouching defined)
- Commonwealth v. Tedford, 960 A.2d 1 (Pa. 2008) (limits on prosecutor commentary and eliciting testimony on credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Ross, 57 A.3d 85 (Pa. Super. 2012) (motive exception to Rule 404(b): requires logical connection)