Com. v. Fitzpatrick, J., III
159 A.3d 562
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Victim (Annemarie Fitzpatrick) drowned June 6, 2012; initially treated as an accident. An embalmed autopsy on June 9, 2012 determined drowning with multiple blunt-force injuries.
- Investigators found a handwritten note and an email from Victim stating concerns about Joe (Appellee) and marital problems; these changed the investigation to a homicide and focused suspicion on Appellee.
- Police discovered Appellee was having an affair, stood to receive about $1.7 million in life insurance, and had made internet searches about life insurance contestability and polygraphs shortly before Victim’s death.
- Appellee gave inconsistent accounts of the ATV accident, and witnesses/forensic testimony showed Victim had many bruises consistent with being held underwater; Appellee had no corresponding injuries.
- A jury convicted Appellee of first-degree murder on May 13, 2015 and imposed life imprisonment; the trial court later granted Appellee’s post-sentence motion for judgment of acquittal for insufficiency of the evidence and denied a new trial.
- The Commonwealth appealed the grant of acquittal; the Superior Court reversed, reinstated the verdict and sentence, and quashed Appellee’s cross-appeal for lack of standing.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth’s Argument | Fitzpatrick’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain a first-degree murder conviction | Circumstantial and testimonial evidence (autopsy injuries, drowning, motive from affair and insurance, inconsistent statements, internet searches) proved unlawful killing, responsibility, and intent | Evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellee intentionally killed Victim; hearsay issues also argued elsewhere | Reversed trial court: evidence sufficient to establish all elements of first-degree murder; verdict and sentence reinstated |
| Admissibility of Victim’s handwritten note and email (hearsay/state-of-mind) | Note and email were admissible under state-of-mind exception and properly admitted at trial | Admission of the note and email violated hearsay rules and constitutional rights (confrontation/ due process) | Superior Court did not reach merits here in disposition (focus was sufficiency); trial court had admitted them; Appellee’s cross-appeal on this issue was quashed for lack of standing but preserved for potential direct appeal after reinstatement |
| Whether Appellee’s cross-appeal was procedurally proper | Commonwealth argued it could appeal the grant of acquittal; Appellee filed a cross-appeal raising sufficiency and hearsay challenges | Appellee maintained the trial court was correct in granting acquittal and thus had standing to cross-appeal | Cross-appeal quashed: Appellee was not an aggrieved party because the order granted him acquittal, so he lacked standing to appeal that favorable order |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128 (Pa. 2011) (elements of first-degree murder require unlawful killing, responsibility, and malice/specific intent)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 947 A.2d 800 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211 (Pa. 2009) (premeditation/deliberation can exist for a brief period; circumstantial evidence may prove intent)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 50 A.2d 317 (Pa. 1947) (motive may be probative of intent; lack of motive may negate intent)
- Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 701 A.2d 492 (Pa. 1997) (intent may be inferred from application of deadly force and surrounding circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Homeyer, 94 A.2d 743 (Pa. 1953) (fabrication of false/contradictory accounts is indicative of guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Dellisanti, 831 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Super. 2003) (cross-appeal quashed where the appellant was not an aggrieved party)
- Commonwealth v. Feathers, 660 A.2d 90 (Pa. Super. 1995) (Commonwealth may appeal an order granting a post-sentence motion for judgment of acquittal)