Com. v. Landis, W., 611 MDA 2021

Background

William R. Landis was tried for the October 28, 2009 shooting death of his wife; physical and forensic evidence (three .380 casings in bedroom, a .380 casing in the basement, ballistics tying all casings to a single .380 recovered in the basement, Landis’s DNA on the gun that fired the fatal shots, autopsy showing a close-range head wound) supported prosecution theory.
After a multi-hour armed standoff with police in which Landis threatened officers, briefly fired at BCERT members, and later surrendered, he was convicted of first‑degree murder at his September 2020 retrial and sentenced to life without parole on November 12, 2020.
Defense theory focused on self‑defense/diminished capacity caused by intoxication; defense expert Dr. Rotenberg testified Landis lacked capacity to form specific intent to kill (citing BAC .23 and cocaine in later blood tests); prosecution rebuttal expert Dr. O’Brien testified Landis was capable of forming intent and relied on investigatory material and observed behavior.
Dr. O’Brien testified (without objection) that investigative reports documented Landis told two Florida resort employees he intended to kill his wife; the trial record later showed the resort witnesses did not so testify, and Landis highlighted that point in a post‑sentence motion arguing the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
The trial court granted Landis a new trial, finding Dr. O’Brien’s testimony incompetent/false and concluding the jury could not make a knowing credibility determination; the Commonwealth appealed.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion by substituting its credibility assessment for the jury’s, failing to consider the full record and whether Dr. O’Brien’s opinion had an adequate factual basis, and thus reinstated the judgment of sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Landis)	Held
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds	The jury reasonably could credit the Commonwealth’s evidence (forensics, DNA, number/placement of gunshots, Landis’s conduct), and the trial court improperly reweighed credibility based on one mistaken statement by the rebuttal expert	Dr. O’Brien misstated facts (resort witnesses) and his testimony was therefore incompetent; that error deprived the jury of reliable rebuttal expert opinion so the verdict shocked the conscience	Reversed: trial court abused discretion; jury was entitled to weigh competing expert testimony and the trial court improperly supplanted jury credibility determinations
2. Whether the Commonwealth waived its appellate argument by an inadequate Rule 1925(b) concise statement	Commonwealth’s concise statement sufficiently identified the trial court’s alleged error and allowed meaningful review	The Commonwealth’s statement was too vague to preserve the argument	Not waived: appellate court found the claim understandable from context and addressed it on the merits
3. Whether an expert’s erroneous statement or failure to produce notes/report automatically renders the expert opinion incompetent	The prosecution argued the mistaken statement was not fatal to Dr. O’Brien’s overall opinion; report had been disclosed in discovery even if not admitted into evidence	Landis argued the false factual predicate and absence of notes/report made the opinion unreliable and unfairly surprising	Held for Commonwealth on this point: the Superior Court declined to adopt the trial court’s sua sponte finding of incompetence because the trial court failed to evaluate whether the opinion stood on other adequate factual bases
4. Proper standard of appellate review for a trial court’s weight‑of‑the‑evidence decision	Trial court’s weight determinations merit gravest consideration but are reviewable for abuse of discretion; appellate court must ensure trial court did not invade the jury’s exclusive domain	Trial court should reweigh evidence and may grant new trial when verdict shocks sense of justice	Held: appellate court applied abuse‑of‑discretion standard and concluded the trial court exceeded its authority by reweighing credibility based on one witness and ignoring the whole record

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard and limits for granting new trial on weight‑of‑evidence grounds)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 538 Pa. 410, 648 A.2d 1177 (Pa. 1994) (trial judge’s role and deference in weight claims)
Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (appellate review of palpable abuse of discretion in weight decisions)
Commonwealth v. Rogers, 250 A.3d 1209 (Pa. 2021) (Rule 1925(b) concise‑statement purpose and when brevity will not cause waiver)
Commonwealth v. Laboy, 230 A.3d 1134 (Pa. Super. 2020) (waiver principles and when a trial court’s opinion permits review despite brief concise statement)
Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 467 Pa. 50, 354 A.2d 545 (Pa. 1976) (trial court’s unique vantage and deference in credibility assessments)
Commonwealth v. Wolfel, 233 A.3d 784 (Pa. 2020) (limits on appellate courts raising issues the Commonwealth did not preserve)
Sullivan v. Werner Co., 253 A.3d 730 (Pa. Super. 2021) (expert‑opinion admissibility requires adequate factual basis)
Newcomer v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Ward Trucking Co.), 692 A.2d 1062 (Pa. 1997) (expert opinion cannot rest solely on inaccurate facts)
In re Nevling, 907 A.2d 672 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (expert medical opinion reviewed as a whole; inaccuracies do not automatically render opinion incompetent)