Com. v. Johnson, A.
Com. v. Johnson, A. No. 848 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 28, 2017Background
- In May 2008 Kamal Murray was shot; at the hospital he gave a detailed description and identified Appellant Aquil Johnson (nicknamed “Quil”) from a photo array; he later recanted at trial.
- Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and PIC and sentenced to 12½–24 years; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- Appellant filed a PCRA petition alleging trial counsel and PCRA counsel were ineffective on multiple grounds and asserting newly discovered eyewitness evidence and Brady claims; the PCRA court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.
- Appellant identified several defense witnesses (Byron Walker, Kieyanna Joyner) who purportedly would exculpate him; one witness (Walker) gave a pretrial statement identifying a different shooter description.
- Appellant produced a notarized affidavit from a newly surfaced eyewitness (Orrin Jones) claiming he saw a tall man with braids shoot the victim.
- The Superior Court vacated the dismissal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing limited to two claims: (1) trial counsel’s failure to secure testimony of Walker and Joyner; and (2) whether Jones’s affidavit is after-discovered evidence warranting a new trial. Other claims were rejected on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective for presenting/counseling alibi with wrong date | Counsel asked alibi witness about wrong date and thereby undermined alibi | Error was inadvertent and corrected on the record; no prejudice | No relief — counsel’s misstatement was corrected and alibi witness confirmed being with Appellant on correct date; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Failure to call eyewitness/ alibi witnesses (Walker, Joyner) | Walker and Joyner were available, willing, and would have provided exculpatory testimony; counsel should have secured them or sought brief adjournment | Strategy decision; evidence of guilt was overwhelming; victim recanted so their testimony not dispositive | Remand for evidentiary hearing — Superior Court found sufficient factual dispute about availability/willingness and potential prejudice to warrant a hearing |
| After-discovered evidence (Orrin Jones affidavit) | Jones’s affidavit, obtained post-trial, identifies a different shooter and could produce a different verdict | Affidavit could have been found earlier or is cumulative/impeaching only | Remand for evidentiary hearing — Court concluded affidavit raises non-frivolous claim that could change the outcome if credible |
| Failure to request Kloiber (identification) instruction | Victim shot from behind at night and had morphine; identification instruction was warranted | Victim had clear view, knew Appellant for years, and was lucid when he gave the statement; Kloiber not triggered | No relief — trial court properly declined instruction; counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless claim |
| Confrontation / admission of police report (Ayers) | Admission of Officer Ayers’s report violated Crawford because Ayers did not testify | Detectives and Officer Bonner testified to the identification; written statement was signed and adopted by victim so admissible; admission was harmless | No relief — no prejudice shown; prior signed statement admissible as substantive evidence and other witnesses testified to same content |
| Brady / discovery re: Detective Jenkins and victim’s arrests | Prosecutor withheld impeachment material (newspaper allegations about Jenkins; victim’s past crimen falsi arrests) | Newspaper article is hearsay and published post-trial; prior arrests without convictions are inadmissible to impeach | No relief — claims lacked merit and did not show suppressed, admissible material or exceptional circumstances for discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose material exculpatory and impeachment evidence)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial out-of-court statements require prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 786 A.2d 203 (Pa. 2001) (three-prong test for PCRA ineffective-assistance claims)
- Commonwealth v. Cousar, 154 A.3d 287 (Pa. 2017) (elements for new trial based on after-discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (failed claims do not aggregate into relief by accumulation)
- Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 106 A.2d 820 (Pa. 1954) (circumstances requiring cautionary identification jury instruction)