Com. v. Hill, S.
3534 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 3, 2017Background
- Shawn R. Hill was convicted after a bench trial of first‑degree murder, multiple counts of attempted murder, conspiracy, various firearms offenses, and related crimes; he was sentenced to life plus consecutive terms.
- On direct appeal Hill raised sufficiency/weight claims and a Brady claim alleging the Commonwealth suppressed bullet fragments recovered from victims; the Superior Court affirmed and denied his Brady claim.
- Hill filed a timely PCRA petition asserting newly discovered evidence supporting his Brady claim: an affidavit about Albert Einstein Medical Center’s (AEMC) policy of submitting recovered projectiles to police.
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and then dismissed the petition and granted counsel leave to withdraw.
- Hill attempted to raise additional issues in a supplemental brief; the Superior Court declined to consider unpreserved supplemental issues and treated Hill’s claim as an after‑discovered evidence attempt to relitigate his Brady claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| After‑discovered evidence/Brady — AEMC policy and potential projectile testing | Hill: AEMC policy affidavit shows projectiles were turned over and could yield DNA/fingerprint evidence that would be exculpatory and compel a different verdict | Commonwealth: Statement of hospital policy is not exculpatory, was obtainable with diligence, ballistics had not linked Hill, and conspiracy theory of guilt makes shooter identity non‑dispositive | Denied — AEMC policy is not after‑discovered exculpatory evidence and would not likely change the verdict; claim improperly relitigates Brady issue resolved on direct appeal |
| PCRA court reliance on prior 1925(a) opinion and its discussion of DNA/fingerprint testing | Hill: PCRA court merely quoted its prior 1925(a) opinion and improperly injected post‑trial scientific theories undermining stipulated facts | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Prior findings and record support denial; speculative testing would not be material | Denied — Court’s conclusions were supported by the record; speculative scientific theories did not make the evidence material |
| Presentation of new supplemental claims (ineffective assistance, detective misconduct) | Hill: Raised multiple new theories of misconduct and ineffective assistance in supplemental brief | Commonwealth: Issues not preserved, no leave granted to supplement, cannot relitigate matters on PCRA | Not considered — Supplemental claims unpreserved and improperly before the Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017) (standards for after‑discovered evidence and timeliness exceptions)
- Dennis v. Secretary, Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 834 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2016) (addressing procedural issues relevant to post‑conviction claims)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 811 A.2d 994 (Pa. 2002) (PCRA petitioners may not relitigate claims previously litigated by presenting new theories)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (counsel withdrawal/no‑merit letter standards)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (procedures for counsel filing no‑merit letters on collateral review)