Com. v. Keiper, R.
3261 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 21, 2016Background
- 1968 homicide: Alfred L. Barnes was shot three times and his body and car were abandoned; the case went cold.
- In 1971 Quaquo Kelly gave a statement implicating Keiper; investigators could not locate Keiper, who left the area and later lived in Texas.
- In 2012–2013 PSP reopened the file, re-interviewed Kelly (who corroborated his 1971 statement), located Keiper in Texas, and Texas Rangers recorded two interviews in which Keiper admitted shooting Barnes (offering varying accounts).
- At trial the Commonwealth played recorded interviews of Keiper and other evidence; during its opening the prosecutor summarized the investigation and referenced Kelly’s 1971 statement and later corroboration.
- After opening, the Commonwealth learned Kelly had been hospitalized and ultimately did not call him; defense counsel had referenced Kelly in opening and cross-examined a witness about him; defense later moved for a mistrial arguing the prosecutor failed to fulfill evidentiary promises made in opening.
- Trial court denied the mistrial, concluding the prosecutor acted in good faith, the references to Kelly were investigative background, the defense suffered no unfair prejudice, and other evidence (Keiper’s statements) tied him to the crime; conviction for first-degree murder and life sentence affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a mistrial was required because the Commonwealth’s opening referenced a witness (Kelly) it did not call | Commonwealth: opening may summarize investigation and facts it intended to prove; references were made in good faith as background | Keiper: prosecutor’s detailed references created impression Kelly would be called; failing to call him deprived Keiper of ability to challenge that evidence and prejudiced his defense | Court: denied mistrial — prosecutor acted in good faith, references were background, no undue prejudice shown given other evidence and trial court’s offer of curative relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Stilley, 689 A.2d 242 (Pa. Super. 1997) (standard for mistrial review and curative instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Bracey, 831 A.2d 678 (Pa. Super. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion review for mistrial denial)
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 336 A.2d 290 (Pa. 1975) (limits on prosecutor’s opening statement)
- Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 354 A.2d 545 (Pa. 1976) (relief for improper opening only if prejudice prevents objective judgment)
- Commonwealth v. Richardson, 437 A.2d 1162 (Pa. 1981) (curative instructions can remove taint of improper testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Savage, 602 A.2d 309 (Pa. 1992) (curative instruction effectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 610 A.2d 931 (Pa. 1992) (opening statements must be based on intended proof, not inflammatory remarks)