Com. v. Hines, B.
981 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- In November 2009, Brian James-Paul Hines shot Gary Hoffner in the face after a confrontation about a stolen heater; Hines later turned himself in and gave two police statements (initially claiming Hoffner drew a gun; later admitting he brought the gun and shot Hoffner).
- Hines moved to suppress the second statement as coerced; the suppression court denied the motion after a hearing where Hines did not testify.
- Jury trial (July 2011) acquitted Hines of attempted murder but convicted him of aggravated assault and related firearm and assault offenses; he received an aggregate prison sentence and probation.
- Post‑trial and appellate procedural history: new counsel for post‑sentence matters failed to perfect an appeal; Hines’ direct appeal rights were eventually reinstated nunc pro tunc; this PCRA is Hines’ first under the reset timeliness analysis.
- Hines filed a PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for (1) advising him not to testify at the suppression hearing, (2) advising him not to testify at trial, (3) failing to repeatedly object/request mistrial to Trooper Finn’s testimony that Hines lied, (4) failing to object/request curative instruction or mistrial for allegedly improper prosecutor closing remarks, and (5) cumulative prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hines) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel ineffective for advising Hines not to testify at suppression hearing | Hines says he would have explained coercive interrogation and counsel’s advice was unreasonable | Counsel testified he advised Hines but did not coerce; concern cross‑examination would reveal testimony to the Commonwealth before trial | Denied — counsel’s advice was reasonable and Hines was not prevented from testifying |
| Counsel ineffective for advising Hines not to testify at trial | Hines says he could have explained voluntariness of second statement | Counsel worried inconsistent prior statements would make Hines’ testimony unbelievable and would undermine trial strategy | Denied — strategic decision reasonably made after consultation; credibility findings deferred to PCRA court |
| Counsel ineffective for not repeatedly objecting/asking mistrial over Trooper Finn opining Hines lied | Hines says trooper’s statements usurped jury’s role and required mistrial | Counsel objected multiple times; court sustained several objections; trooper’s remarks explained investigative process and were corroborated by other evidence | Denied — remarks were investigative explanation, not unduly prejudicial; curative jury instructions adequate |
| Counsel ineffective for not objecting/seeking curative instruction or mistrial for prosecutor’s closing argument | Hines says prosecutor improperly bolstered witnesses and vouched, attacking defense credibility | Commonwealth argues remarks were fair response to defense, based on evidence and inferences, or rhetorical flourish; trial court instructed jury on credibility | Denied — closing was responsive to defense and based on evidence; no clear prosecutorial error |
| Cumulative ineffective assistance claim | Hines contends combined errors deprived him of a fair trial | Commonwealth notes individual claims fail on merits so cumulative claim lacks foundation | Denied — where individual claims lack merit, accumulation cannot justify relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (ineffective assistance test explained)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 927 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (presumption counsel is effective)
- Commonwealth v. Todd, 820 A.2d 707 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standards on counsel advising defendant whether to testify)
- Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352 (Pa. 1995) (scope of cross‑examination relative to direct testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012) (cumulative prejudice and aggregation of ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (prosecutorial comment standard: reversal only when unavoidable effect prejudices jury)