Com. v. Galli, H.
Com. v. Galli, H. No. 1336 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- Victim was poisoned with ethylene glycol after drinking juice at Victor Galli’s home; Victim testified Victor told her, “Drink this, [Appellee] said it will make you feel better.” Appellee is Victor’s mother, Helen Galli.
- Victim was hospitalized and diagnosed with antifreeze (ethylene glycol) poisoning; police interviewed Victim at hospital and Trooper Brogan relayed Victim’s statements at trial.
- At trial, Victim and Trooper Brogan testified about Victim’s statement implicating Appellee; trial counsel did not object to that testimony or to Trooper Brogan’s opinion testimony and did not seek a curative instruction.
- A jury convicted Appellee of aggravated assault, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person; sentence imposed and affirmed on direct appeal.
- Appellee filed a PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to inadmissible hearsay and opinion testimony; PCRA court granted relief, vacated convictions, and ordered a new trial.
- Commonwealth appealed, arguing counsel’s failure to object was strategic and that the evidence aside from the hearsay was sufficient; Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court’s grant of a new trial (except disagreeing that the Confrontation Clause was implicated).
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Galli's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Victim and Trooper Brogan’s testimony (hearsay/opinion) | Counsel had reasonable strategy to attack Victim’s credibility; admission of statements fit into broader tactic and other evidence would convict regardless | Failure to object to hearsay and opinion testimony lacked reasonable basis and prejudiced outcome because the hearsay was the chief operative fact linking Galli to the poisoning | Trial counsel was ineffective: no reasonable basis for failing to object; cumulative errors prejudiced Galli and warranted a new trial |
| Whether Victim’s statement violated Confrontation Clause | Statement did not violate Confrontation Clause because Victim and Victor (the declarant) were available and cross-examined at trial | Claimed Confrontation Clause violation (later conceded to lack arguable merit) | Superior Court disagreed with PCRA court on this point: no Confrontation Clause violation; claim lacks arguable merit |
| Whether Victim’s statement qualified as non-hearsay or fit an exception (e.g., present sense impression) | Inevitable admission/impeachment/use at trial; counsel could have used impeachment tactics | Statement was hearsay offered for truth and not covered by exceptions; should have been excluded | Statement was hearsay without an applicable exception; admission was reversible error when combined with counsel’s failure to object |
| Whether exclusion of the challenged testimony would have changed outcome (prejudice) | Forensic and other evidence independently linked Galli to poisoning so no prejudice | Hearsay was cornerstone of Commonwealth’s direct link to Galli; its admission was highly prejudicial | Under totality of evidence, counsel’s omissions created reasonable probability of a different outcome; prejudice established and new trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing ineffective assistance standard)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 645 A.2d 189 (Pa. 1994) (threshold and reasonable-basis inquiry for ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 950 A.2d 294 (Pa. 2008) (strategic-choice standard; alternative must offer substantially greater potential for success)
- Commonwealth v. Simmons, 804 A.2d 625 (Pa. 2002) (consider totality of evidence when assessing prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Puksar, 740 A.2d 219 (Pa. 1999) (hearsay inadmissible unless exception applies)
- Commonwealth v. Mollett, 5 A.3d 291 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Confrontation Clause not violated when witness is available for cross-examination)