Com. v. Jones, W.
1781 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Wendell Jones was convicted by a jury of two counts of first‑degree murder, burglary, and a firearms violation for the July 4, 2008 murders of Sonsiarae Watts and Dahl Palm; he received two consecutive life sentences plus a 10–20 year term for burglary.
- Key prosecution evidence: victims shot inside Watts’s apartment with no forced entry; spent .40 caliber casings fired from a single weapon; Jones had a key to the residence; a neighbor heard shots and saw a dark‑skinned male in light shirt and dark shorts walking away; Jones’s clothing and left palm tested positive for gunshot residue; cell records showed activity early that morning.
- Jones testified he was at home alone at the time of the murders (an asserted alibi). Defense presented witnesses but no corroborating alibi witness; defense theory also attempted to suggest third‑party culpability.
- Post‑conviction, Jones filed a timely PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request three jury instructions: (1) an alibi instruction; (2) a third‑party culpability instruction; and (3) an instruction highlighting Jones’s prior consistent statement that he was at home and did not commit the murders.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition after a hearing; the Superior Court affirmed, holding Jones failed to show counsel lacked a reasonable basis or that he suffered prejudice from the alleged omissions.
Issues
| Issue | Jones’s Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Counsel’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting an alibi instruction | Jones testified he was at home; counsel should have requested an alibi charge to ensure jury knew failure to corroborate is not evidence of guilt | Counsel reasonably declined because the alibi was uncorroborated and weak; strategy focused on blaming a third party; the jury was instructed to assess credibility generally | No relief—counsel had a reasonable basis and Jones failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting a third‑party culpability instruction | Counsel should have sought an instruction to emphasize alternative perpetrator theory | There was no admissible evidence supporting third‑party culpability; proposing such an instruction would be meritless and confusing | No relief—underlying claim lacked merit; counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless instruction |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting an instruction emphasizing Jones’s prior consistent statement (that he was home) | A specific instruction highlighting the prior consistent statement would have increased the statement’s weight and created reasonable doubt | Trial court already instructed jury on assessing prior inconsistent and prior consistent statements and on witness credibility | No relief—claim undeveloped, trial court had given relevant credibility instructions, and Jones did not show prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 786 A.2d 203 (Pa. 2001) (three‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 894 A.2d 716 (Pa. 2006) (alibi instruction entitlement and prejudice analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Pounds, 417 A.2d 597 (Pa. 1980) (alibi instruction required when alibi evidence introduced)
- Commonwealth v. Roxberry, 602 A.2d 826 (Pa. 1992) (definition and treatment of alibi defense)
- Commonwealth v. Roane, 142 A.3d 79 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)