Com. v. Focht, N.
2025 Pa. Super. 85
Pa. Super. Ct.2025Background
- Nancy Lee Focht was convicted by a jury for first-degree murder and tampering with evidence after shooting her husband in a shed outside their home.
- The Focht marriage was marked by a long history of mutual verbal and physical abuse; however, more recent conflicts were mainly verbal.
- On the day of the shooting, a domestic argument escalated over issues including property boundaries and medical bills; Focht retrieved a firearm from her home and subsequently shot her husband in the shed.
- After initially giving false statements to police, Focht admitted bringing the gun into the shed and shooting her husband, claiming self-defense due to fear from threats by the victim.
- At trial, Focht asserted a justification defense based on self-defense; the Commonwealth presented forensic evidence undermining her account of the shooting.
- The trial court instructed the jury on the duty to retreat and admitted photographs of the victim’s body into evidence over defense objections. The jury convicted Focht, who appealed on grounds related to the jury instructions and photo evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to retreat/castle doctrine | Shed should qualify as part of dwelling; castle doctrine applies, so no duty to retreat | Shed does not meet statutory definition of "dwelling"; even if it did, Focht was initial aggressor | Shed was not a dwelling; jury instruction requiring duty to retreat was correct |
| Admission of photos of victim's body | Photos were inflammatory, not probative, likely to prejudice jury | Photos were not inflammatory; essential to show wound's location and refute Focht's testimony | Photos not inflammatory; probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect; properly admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Childs, 142 A.3d 823 (Pa. 2016) (explains the ideological and statutory foundation of the castle doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Drummond, 285 A.3d 625 (Pa. 2022) (standards for reviewing jury instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Woodard, 129 A.3d 480 (Pa. 2015) (two-part analysis for admissibility of victim photographs)
- Commonwealth v. Walter, 119 A.3d 255 (Pa. 2015) (scope of appellate review for admission of gruesome photographs)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053 (Pa. 2013) (use and admissibility standard for potentially inflammatory evidence)