Com. v. Love, M., 929 WDA 2015

On January 19, 2006 Eric Martin was shot at a playground; a 9mm shell casing was recovered and the victim died.
Witnesses identified Mark Anthony Love and two brothers, Sheldon and Lamothe Meggett, as present; the Meggetts later admitted involvement in an earlier robbery and said they gave a gun to Love.
Police arrested Love shortly after the incident; they found a 9mm Smith & Wesson in his apartment that ballistically matched the shell casing and a 32‑caliber handgun on his person; Love also possessed a 9mm magazine when apprehended.
Detective DeFelice testified that Love confessed: Love admitted he placed the 9mm at Martin’s head, fired once to scare him, then Martin fell; Love then fled and told the Meggetts he had shot Martin.
The Meggett brothers testified at trial that they saw Love point the gun and heard the shot; their testimony was key to the prosecution’s case alongside Love’s confession and the ballistics evidence.
Love was convicted of second‑degree murder, robbery, trespass, and carrying a firearm without a license; sentenced to life without parole. On PCRA review, Love argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a ‘corrupt source’ jury instruction regarding the Meggett brothers, and the PCRA court denied relief; the Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Love's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting a ‘corrupt source’ (accomplice/cautionary) jury instruction about the Meggett brothers	Counsel’s omission deprived Love of a cautionary instruction that could have led the jury to discredit the Meggett testimony, which was primary evidence against him	Even without the corrupt‑source charge, overwhelming independent evidence (Love’s confession, ballistics linking the 9mm to the scene, flight upon police arrival, possession of 9mm magazine) would have led to conviction; no prejudice shown	Denied — no PCRA relief; failure to show reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the instruction

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Commonwealth v. Colavita, 606 Pa. 1 (2010) (presumption of counsel effectiveness and discussion of inquiry into strategy)
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (PCRA standards and ineffective assistance framework)
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 (Pa. 1986) (three‑part ineffectiveness test refinement)
Commonwealth v. Ali, 608 Pa. 71 (Pa. 2013) (application of prejudice standard and reasonable probability formulation)
Commonwealth v. Simpson, 620 Pa. 60 (Pa. 2013) (failure to prove any prong defeats IAC claim)
Commonwealth v. Hackett, 534 Pa. 65 (1993) (note: original opinion in text cites 627 A.2d 719) (describes corrupt‑source/accomplice cautionary instruction concept)
Commonwealth v. King, 618 Pa. 405 (Pa. 2013) (explaining reasonable‑probability prejudice standard)
Commonwealth v. Collins, 598 Pa. 397 (Pa. 2009) (discusses reasonable probability language drawn from Strickland)