Com. v. Miller, M.
Com. v. Miller, M. No. 616 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 16, 2017Background
- Michael Miller was tried in Centre County for animal cruelty (18 Pa.C.S.A. §5511) and multiple counts of recklessly endangering another person after he shot a dog named Copper; jury convicted him of one count of animal cruelty and eight counts of recklessly endangering another person.
- At trial the Commonwealth presented veterinary testimony that shrapnel from a bullet penetrated Copper’s skull so deeply that removal was too risky; the owner found Copper bleeding after hearing a gunshot and Miller told police he retrieved a rifle and shot the dog.
- The court precluded Dr. Shapira from testifying as an expert, then, after receiving a written opinion from Dr. Shapira confirming his veterinary conclusions and standard-of-certainty language, reconsidered and permitted Dr. Shapira to testify as an expert.
- Defense sought to introduce evidence of prior attacks by Copper on Miller’s dogs to justify the shooting under the statutory justification provision; the court excluded this evidence as not showing Copper’s behavior at the time of the shooting and as potentially confusing the jury.
- Defense raised additional grounds for a new trial: alleged improper prosecutorial remark in closing, alleged ethical conflict from the District Attorney’s prior representation of Miller, prosecutorial misconduct regarding Dr. Shapira’s report, and error in the jury instruction on the mens rea for animal cruelty. The court denied post-sentence motions and Miller appealed; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Miller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor's personal-opinion remark in closing | Remark was a permissible response to defense charges and not prejudicial | The comment "I wouldn't be standing here if I didn't think he was guilty" was improper and warranted a new trial | Court: isolated, responsive to defense, lost in hour-long argument → no prejudice; new trial denied |
| Exclusion of evidence of Copper's prior attacks | Prior acts irrelevant to Copper’s behavior at time of shooting and would confuse jury | Prior attacks showed Miller's state of mind and were exculpatory/constituted justification evidence | Court: justification applies only if dog was actively attacking at the time; prior acts irrelevant/confusing → exclusion affirmed |
| Prosecutorial misconduct re: Dr. Shapira's report | Commonwealth timely disclosed that Dr. Shapira had rendered veterinary opinions; prosecutor sought reconsideration after securing clarifying language | Prosecutor impermissibly backdated/modified report to secure expert testimony and subverted process | Court: defense had initial report in June; prosecutor confirmed opinions and obtained clarifying language; no subversion → no new trial |
| Jury instruction on mens rea for animal cruelty | Standard instruction (including "either/or" phrasing) adequately explained willful and malicious requirement | Instruction misstated law by implying "willful or malicious" rather than both and prejudiced defendant | Court: misstatement was corrected pretrial and standard instruction reasonably and accurately presented the law → no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Solomon, 25 A.3d 380 (Pa. Super. 2011) (prosecutorial remarks judged by effect on fairness of trial)
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 57 A.3d 74 (Pa. Super. 2012) (context of argument controls whether prosecutor's statements are reversible)
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 720 A.2d 79 (Pa. 1998) (responding to defense argument can make prosecutorial remarks permissible)
- Commonwealth v. Windsor, 902 A.2d 1245 (Pa. Super. 2006) (waiver of disqualification objections if not timely raised)
- Reilly by Reilly v. SEPTA, 489 A.2d 1291 (Pa. 1985) (issues of disqualification waived if not raised before verdict)
- Commonwealth v. Bormack, 827 A.2d 503 (Pa. Super. 2003) (post-verdict new-trial claims based on known facts are not after-discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Ingram, 926 A.2d 470 (Pa. Super. 2007) (statutory justification for animal cruelty requires the dog be in the act of attacking at the time)
- Commonwealth v. Mobley, 14 A.3d 887 (Pa. Super. 2011) (sufficiency review permits circumstantial evidence and inferences)
- Commonwealth v. Mollett, 5 A.3d 291 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standards for assessing sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 854 A.2d 1194 (Pa. Super. 2008) (trial court has broad discretion in phrasing jury instructions; reversible error only for inaccurate statements of law)
- Commonwealth v. Einhorn, 911 A.2d 960 (Pa. Super. 2006) (jury instruction review standard and abuse of discretion)