Com. v. Garrick, J.
1579 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 7, 2016Background
- Garrick was convicted after a jury trial of attempted rape by forcible compulsion and simple assault based on an incident May 12, 2011; the jury credited the complainant over Garrick, who denied the assault.
- The complainant testified the assault occurred in Garrick’s home; photographs of minor bruising were admitted; Garrick claimed the bruising could be from a prior rollover car accident and asserted the complainant stole prescription narcotics.
- At trial counsel (Karl Rominger) did not call any character witnesses to testify to Garrick’s reputation for peacefulness or law‑abiding behavior; counsel also did not oppose admission of a prior 2006 rape allegation that the complainant raised.
- On PCRA review Garrick alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call specific character witnesses (Andrea Pierce, Trea Townes, Kristen Swainston) whom he had identified and who testified at the PCRA hearing they were willing and available.
- The PCRA court denied relief; on appeal the Superior Court reversed, finding counsel had no reasonable basis for failing to investigate or call the witnesses and that Garrick was prejudiced because the case essentially came down to his word versus the complainant’s.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call character witnesses | Garrick: counsel ignored names he provided and failed to investigate or call witnesses who would testify to his peaceful, law‑abiding reputation | Commonwealth/Trial counsel: decision was tactical; concerned about exposing witnesses to cross‑examination regarding prior allegations and skeptical of value of character witnesses generally | Held: Ineffective assistance — counsel lacked reasonable basis for failing to investigate/call witnesses and Garrick was prejudiced; conviction vacated and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Fears v. Commonwealth, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (standards for reviewing PCRA determinations)
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (scope of appellate review of trial court findings)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 732 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1999) (presumption of effective assistance of counsel and burden on petitioner)
- Fulton v. Commonwealth, 830 A.2d 567 (Pa. 2003) (ineffective assistance test elements)
- Daniels v. Commonwealth, 963 A.2d 409 (Pa. 2009) (failure to satisfy any prong requires rejection)
- In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657 (Pa. Super. 2012) (importance of character evidence)
- Luther v. Commonwealth, 463 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Super. 1983) (character evidence can engender reasonable doubt)
- Harris v. Commonwealth, 785 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2001) (failure to present available character evidence may be ineffective assistance)
- Weiss v. Commonwealth, 606 A.2d 439 (Pa. 1992) (character evidence substantive; critical where case is victim’s word vs defendant)
- Hull v. Commonwealth, 982 A.2d 1020 (Pa. Super. 2009) (failure to call character witnesses where credibility paramount can be ineffective)
- Wantz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 324 (Pa. Super. 2014) (elements to prove prejudice from failure to call witness)
- Van Horn v. Commonwealth, 797 A.2d 988 (Pa. Super. 2001) (limits on using risk of cross‑examination about prior allegations to justify withholding character witnesses)