Com. v. Frazier, J.
296 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 2, 2016Background
- In July 2000 Jessica (Sherdina) Jones was shot to death on Kelly Street; investigators recovered a modified .22 rifle in a dumpster whose casings and bullet fragments matched the gun. Jason Frazier was later arrested and, after waiving Miranda, confessed that he fired eleven shots from a sawed-off .22, was tried, convicted of first-degree murder, and sentenced to life without parole.
- Frazier pursued direct appeal and multiple PCRA petitions; this opinion concerns a PCRA petition filed November 5, 2014 (a subsequent petition) asserting newly-discovered evidence that Paul Pierce confessed to the killing.
- The 2014 petition relied on affidavits from five witnesses: Jerone and Matthew Ebo (the Ebo brothers), Ronald Thornhill, Eddie Green, and Bryant Blye, each stating Pierce admitted shooting or was observed shooting at Frazier.
- The Commonwealth argued the affidavits either repeat previously known facts or are cumulative and would not change the verdict; the PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely in part and on the merits as to the after-discovered-evidence claims.
- The Superior Court reviewed timeliness (section 9545 exceptions) and substantive after-discovered-evidence standards, concluding: (1) Ebo brothers’ and Thornhill affidavits failed the due-diligence requirement for the newly-discovered-fact exception; (2) Green’s and Blye’s affidavits met the timeliness exception but failed the substantive test because they were cumulative corroboration of Frazier’s claim of being shot at and would not likely produce a different verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Frazier) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition was timely under PCRA newly-discovered-facts exception | Affidavits from witnesses (Ebos, Thornhill, Green, Blye) are newly discovered; petition filed within 60 days after prior PCRA final disposition | Many affidavits merely supply new sources for previously known facts; some facts were known or could have been pursued earlier | Court: Ebos and Thornhill fail due diligence — untimely; Green and Blye satisfy timeliness exception |
| Whether affidavits establish after-discovered evidence entitling to new trial | Affidavits show Paul Pierce admitted/shooting first; would exculpate Frazier or support self-defense | Evidence is cumulative/corroborative of Frazier’s confession and self-defense claim and would not likely change verdict | Court: After-discovered-evidence test not met — affidavits cumulative and would not likely change outcome |
| Whether trial counsel’s alleged failure to investigate defeats due-diligence requirement | Counsel prevented discovery (didn’t interview or suppressed reports), so Frazier couldn’t learn facts earlier | Even if counsel acted poorly, Frazier had reason to pursue these leads earlier (or when new counsel appointed) and failed to do so | Court: Due-diligence rule strictly enforced; counsel’s alleged inaction does not excuse delay for Ebos and Thornhill |
| Whether impeachment-only or corroborative evidence suffices for new trial | Affidavits bolster self-defense and identify alternate shooter — not mere impeachment | Corroborative or cumulative evidence cannot satisfy after-discovered-evidence standard | Court: Corroborative/cumulative evidence (Green & Blye) insufficient to justify new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (defines two-part newly-discovered-facts exception: facts were unknown and could not have been discovered with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sets PCRA after-discovered-evidence test for new trial)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 35 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2011) (strict enforcement of due-diligence requirement for PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (distinguishes jurisdictional newly-discovered-fact showing from substantive after-discovered-evidence claim)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 950 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2008) (elements for eligibility for relief under PCRA based on after-discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (procedural rule on filing subsequent PCRA petitions while prior petition pending)
- Commonwealth v. Serge, 837 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2003) (limits on use of deadly force and relevance to self-defense claims)
- Commonwealth v. Flamer, 53 A.3d 82 (Pa. Super. 2012) (discussion of corroborative evidence and its treatment under after-discovered-evidence analysis)