Com. v. Mial, L.
2414 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 27, 2017Background
- Victim John ‘Peanut’ Hairston was shot five times and killed after being chased into a dead-end alley by Lazarus Mial following a confrontation at the victim’s girlfriend’s home.
- Appellant was tried and convicted of first-degree murder, related firearms offenses, and possession of an instrument of crime; sentenced to life without parole plus concurrent terms.
- Defense opening asserted Mial’s absolute innocence; defense later requested a voluntary manslaughter jury charge but then withdrew the request after the trial court ruled the Commonwealth could tell the jury the defense had requested that charge.
- The trial court ultimately did not give a voluntary manslaughter instruction; jury convicted Mial of first-degree murder.
- On appeal Mial argued the trial court improperly conditioned the manslaughter instruction on permitting the prosecutor to explain that the defense requested it (invading judicial function and constituting prosecutorial misconduct), and separately challenged the legality of a 5–10 year sentence on a §6108 conviction as exceeding the statutory maximum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by conditioning a defense‑requested voluntary manslaughter charge on allowing the Commonwealth to tell the jury the defense requested it | Commonwealth: prosecutor may comment on evidence and reasonable inferences; explaining why a charge was before the jury is permissible to avoid confusion | Mial: court abdicated its duty to charge law by delegating to prosecutor; prosecutor’s statements would imply defense conceded intentional killing and constitute prosecutorial misconduct | Court: No reversible error. The manslaughter charge was withdrawn by defense as a tactical choice; Commonwealth’s potential comments would have been permissible and no prejudice shown |
| Whether prosecutor’s proposed comments about the source/reason for the manslaughter charge violated due process / were prosecutorial misconduct | Commonwealth: closing remarks tied to evidence and permissible advocacy; prosecutor has wide latitude | Mial: comments would unfairly prejudice jury and remove jury’s fact‑finding role | Court: Rejected. Prosecutorial remarks based on evidence and reasonable inferences are allowed; no actual improper comment occurred and no prejudice shown |
| Whether trial court had duty to give voluntary manslaughter instruction despite lack of supporting evidence | Commonwealth: court need not give manslaughter unless supported by evidence; giving it when unsupported risks unwarranted verdict | Mial: evidence allegedly supported manslaughter and thus court erred by not instructing | Court: No error—trial court need not charge manslaughter absent supporting evidence; defense strategically withdrew the request |
| Whether the 5–10 year sentence for 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108 exceeds statutory maximum | Commonwealth: concedes the sentence exceeds statutory maximum for a first‑degree misdemeanor | Mial: argues sentence illegal | Court: Agrees the 5–10 year term is illegal; vacates that portion and remands for resentencing on the §6108 conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cash, 137 A.3d 1262 (Pa. 2016) (prosecutor has wide discretion in closing; comments based on evidence or reasonable inferences are permissible)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 952 A.2d 594 (Pa. 2008) (trial court may express view on appropriateness of a lesser verdict so long as jury is instructed it is not bound by the court’s opinion)
- Commonwealth v. Browdie, 654 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Super. 1995) (trial court not required to charge voluntary manslaughter absent evidence supporting it)
- Commonwealth v. Norman, 549 A.2d 981 (Pa. Super. 1988) (defense counsel’s tactical choices can preclude later claims of prejudice on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 934 A.2d 1191 (Pa. 2007) (when appellate disposition alters sentencing scheme, remand for resentencing is appropriate)