Com. v. Landis, W.
2022 Pa. Super. 97
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2022Background
- Appellant Commonwealth appealed a trial court order (Apr. 16, 2021) granting William R. Landis Jr. a new trial after his second jury convicted him of first‑degree murder.
- Central disputed issue at trial: whether Landis had the specific intent to kill or was so intoxicated (diminished capacity) that he could not form that intent.
- Commonwealth expert Dr. John O’Brien testified Landis was capable of intent, relying in part on investigatory interviews of two Florida hotel witnesses and his interpretation of the shooting pattern.
- Defense expert Dr. Larry Rotenberg testified Landis lacked the requisite intent; defense argued O’Brien’s testimony was unreliable and prejudicial.
- The trial court found multiple defects in Dr. O’Brien’s testimony (e.g., failure to retain notes, misleading testimony, false statements about witnesses and shot sequence) and concluded those defects unfairly surprised and prejudiced Landis, warranting a new trial.
- Judge Kunselman’s dissent argues the Commonwealth waived its appellate challenge, that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting a new trial on weight grounds, and that if an incorrect standard was applied the proper remedy is remand for the trial court to reapply the correct test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Landis) | Held (Dissent) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth waived challenge to trial court’s discretionary ruling | Commonwealth contends trial court erred in granting new trial and the issue is reviewable | Landis contends Commonwealth failed to properly frame/ preserve the abuse‑of‑discretion complaint | Dissent: Commonwealth waived by not specifying how trial court abused discretion; challenge inadequately framed |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in granting new trial on weight‑of‑evidence grounds | Verdict should stand because evidence (including Dr. O’Brien) was sufficient and any inaccuracies were harmless | Trial court should be affirmed: O’Brien’s unreliable testimony tipped the scales and prejudiced Landis | Dissent: No abuse of discretion; trial court properly weighed experts and found jury misled, warranting new trial |
| Admissibility/impact of Dr. O’Brien’s testimony about hotel witnesses and shot sequence | Any errors in O’Brien’s testimony were harmless; jury had other evidence from witnesses | O’Brien’s statements were unsupported, misleading, and crucial to jury’s intent finding | Dissent: O’Brien’s defects (false/misleading statements, missing notes, unadmitted report) unfairly prejudiced Landis and undermined jury’s ability to decide knowingly |
| Remedy if trial court applied incorrect standard | Court of appeals should reverse and reinstate conviction if trial court misapplied the law | If incorrect standard used, remand for trial court to apply correct weight‑of‑evidence test | Dissent: If wrong standard applied, remand for trial court to determine whether verdict shocks its sense of justice; not reversal and reinstatement |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2015) (explaining diminished‑capacity defense)
- Commonwealth v. McMurray, 47 A. 952 (Pa. 1901) (holding pre‑formed intent not negated by subsequent voluntary intoxication)
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1982) (distinguishing weight‑of‑evidence review from sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (defining trial court’s role in weighing evidence and granting a new trial)
- Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 265 A.3d 290 (Pa. 2021) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for reviewing trial court’s discretionary rulings)