Com. v. Hernandez, T.
Com. v. Hernandez, T. No. 1974 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Aug 22, 2017Background
- On June 3, 2016, Tiara Hernandez and Spryce York were involved in a physical altercation at York’s residence; each gave conflicting accounts about who initiated the confrontation and whether Hernandez was invited inside.
- Hernandez testified she entered to retrieve keys, was trapped and attacked by York and a third party, then bit York and escaped; York testified Hernandez forced entry and immediately struck her.
- Hernandez was charged with burglary, criminal trespass, and two counts of simple assault; a jury acquitted Hernandez of burglary and trespass but convicted her of simple assault.
- The trial court provided the jury with written copies of the instructions on the elements of the offenses for use during deliberations, but refused defense requests to send a written copy of the self-defense instruction.
- During deliberations the jury expressly asked for the definition/documentation of self-defense; the court re-read the instruction aloud multiple times but declined to provide a written copy, citing inability to prepare it.
- Hernandez challenged the denial under Pa.R.Crim.P. 646(B)(1), arguing the court’s partial delivery of written instructions (elements but not defense) violated the rule and prejudiced her right to a fair verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Hernandez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by giving written elements but not written self‑defense instruction during deliberations | Allowing written elements is within discretion; comments to rule non‑binding; no undue emphasis or prejudice | Rule 646 requires written copies of all charged elements and any defenses if any written elements provided; denying written self‑defense caused prejudice | Reversed: court abused discretion by denying written self‑defense when written elements were sent; error was not harmless |
| Whether comments and legislative history of Rule 646 are persuasive/controlling | Comments are nonbinding so should have limited weight | Comments and legislative history show Rule 646 intended written instructions on elements and relevant defenses to be provided together | Court relied on comments and legislative history as interpretive aids and found they support defendant |
| Whether the error was harmless | Evidence and jury verdict supposedly show self‑defense not supported; any error harmless | Sending only elements risks undue emphasis and could have affected verdict; jury repeatedly asked for written self‑defense | Error was not harmless; reversed and remanded for new trial |
| Whether trial court’s practical concern (unable to prepare copies) justified refusal | Practical limits can justify refusal if neutral | Photocopying or other means available; court’s refusal unjustified | Practical inability to prepare copies did not excuse rule compliance; refusal prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Barnett, 50 A.3d 176 (Pa. Super. 2012) (trial court’s discretion governs what jurors may take into deliberations)
- Commonwealth v. Reeb, 593 A.2d 853 (Pa. Super. 1991) (comments to rules are persuasive interpretive aids)
- Commonwealth v. Lockridge, 810 A.2d 1191 (Pa. 2002) (court may rely on Committee Comments to construe procedural rules)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 596 A.2d 222 (Pa. Super. 1991) (trial court may exclude exhibits from deliberations to avoid undue emphasis)
- Commonwealth v. Strong, 836 A.2d 884 (Pa. 2003) (harmless‑error analysis applies to improper materials in jury deliberations)
- Commonwealth v. Story, 383 A.2d 155 (Pa. 1978) (error may be harmless when properly admitted evidence overwhelmingly supports guilt)