Com. v. Getz, K.
Com. v. Getz, K. No. 725 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 7, 2017Background
- Six-week-old infant presented to hospital with extensive injuries: complete left femur fracture, fractures of right femur and tibia, multiple recent and healing rib fractures, and bruising.
- Parents reported no clear cause; appellant (Getz) later admitted squeezing the child and signing a statement about wrapping him too tightly; police interviewed him and he made inculpatory statements.
- Getz was tried by jury, convicted of aggravated assault and related offenses, and sentenced to 6–12 years; direct appeal affirmed by Superior Court in 2014.
- Getz filed a timely counseled PCRA petition claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consult/present an expert to narrow the injury-timing timeline and for inadequate cross-examination of the Commonwealth’s expert.
- At the PCRA hearing, defense expert Dr. Pascucci largely agreed with Commonwealth expert Dr. Bellino, offering only a slightly narrower timeline for the left-leg injury (within a few hours before the ER visit) and conceding her view relied in part on caregiver history.
- PCRA court denied relief; Superior Court affirmed, holding Getz failed to prove prejudice from counsel’s alleged errors given the evidence (including multiple injuries and appellant’s admissions).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting an expert rebutting the Commonwealth’s timeline of the infant’s injuries | Counsel failed to present an available expert who would show injuries occurred when Getz was not caring for the child, which would have exculpated him | Defense expert testimony at PCRA did not materially contradict Commonwealth’s timeline; counsel’s failure did not prejudice Getz given admissions and other injuries | Denied — no prejudice shown; counsel not ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (PCRA ineffective-assistance standard and prejudice requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (reasonableness of counsel’s strategic decisions)
- Commonwealth v. Wayne, 720 A.2d 456 (Pa. 1998) (failure to obtain expert rebuttal is not ineffective absent proof expert would aid defense)
- Commonwealth v. Millward, 830 A.2d 991 (Pa. Super. 2003) (requirements for ineffective-assistance claim based on failing to present an expert witness)
- Commonwealth v. Bryant, 855 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2004) (need to identify available witness and evidence for expert-witness ineffectiveness claim)
- Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352 (Pa. 1995) (courts may dispose of ineffectiveness claims on prejudice ground alone)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 141 A.3d 440 (Pa. 2016) (no ineffectiveness where uncalled expert testimony would not have helped defense)