Com. v. Landis, W., Jr.
201 A.3d 768
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- In 2009 William R. Landis was charged with first- and third-degree murder plus multiple assault-related counts after his wife was found shot and a later standoff with police occurred.
- At trial (2013) the jury convicted Landis of first-degree murder, acquitted him of third-degree murder and other lesser counts, and the verdicts were polled and recorded; Commonwealth filed no post-trial motion.
- Landis was sentenced to life; he obtained PCRA relief (new trial) based on trial counsel's failure to present a diminished-capacity expert; the Superior Court affirmed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- After PCRA relief, the Commonwealth sought to reinstate Counts 2–4 (third-degree murder and aggravated assault); the trial court denied the petition on double jeopardy and laches grounds for third-degree murder (and laches for aggravated assault).
- Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court affirmed, holding double jeopardy bars reinstatement of the third-degree murder charge and deferring diminished-capacity evidentiary/instructional issues to the retrial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy bars reinstatement of third-degree murder on retrial | Commonwealth: conviction of first-degree murder proves all elements of third-degree murder so reinstatement is allowed | Landis: acquittal of third-degree murder is final; double jeopardy bars reprosecution | Held: Double jeopardy bars reinstatement—acquittal is final despite inconsistency with a conviction on a higher charge |
| Whether Commonwealth may reinstate aggravated assault counts (laches) | Commonwealth abandoned this claim on appeal | Landis: lapsed time and prior disposition barred reinstatement | Held: Commonwealth abandoned appellate argument; trial court’s laches ruling as to aggravated assault was not challenged |
| Whether Landis may present a diminished-capacity defense if third-degree murder is barred | Commonwealth: diminished-capacity defense effectively concedes guilt to third-degree murder and would circumvent double jeopardy | Landis: diminished capacity is a jury question and does not require waiver of double jeopardy | Held: Deferred—decision on admissibility/instructions left to trial court at retrial (premature to decide here) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ball, 146 A.3d 755 (Pa. 2016) (explaining absolute finality of acquittals under double jeopardy)
- Commonwealth v. Tillman, 461 A.2d 795 (Pa. 1983) (discussing finality afforded to jury acquittals)
- Commonwealth v. McDaniels, 886 A.2d 682 (Pa.Super. 2005) (recorded jury verdicts are inviolate)
- Commonwealth v. Petteway, 847 A.2d 713 (Pa.Super. 2004) (double jeopardy violated where judge sent jury back after inconsistent verdicts)
- Commonwealth v. Kearns, 70 A.3d 881 (Pa.Super. 2013) (standard of review on double jeopardy and deference to factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Larkins, 829 A.2d 1203 (Pa.Super. 2003) (discussing waiver of double jeopardy to allow lesser-included instructions)
- Commonwealth v. VanDivner, 962 A.2d 1170 (Pa. 2009) (diminished capacity is a jury question of fact)
- Commonwealth v. Terry, 521 A.2d 398 (Pa. 1987) (supervisory disapproval of recording acquittals on lesser-included counts when convicting on a higher degree)
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 177 A.3d 359 (Pa.Super. 2017) (double jeopardy protects against repeated prosecutions for same offense)