Com. v. Mitchell, E.
Com. v. Mitchell, E. No. 1058 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 11, 2017Background
- On Jan 24, 2014, Earl P. Mitchell shot and killed Jareek Adams and shot Jonathan Moore after an altercation while Mitchell, Linda Coleman, and others were in/around Mitchell’s vehicle; Mitchell claimed self-defense.
- Mitchell fled to Virginia, led police on a pursuit, hid in a stranger’s home, held two men hostage with the murder weapon, and was arrested; the weapon linked to the shooting by ballistics.
- Commonwealth charged Mitchell with third-degree murder, attempted homicide, four counts of aggravated assault, and carrying a firearm without a license; jury convicted him of third-degree murder, four aggravated assaults, and carrying a firearm without a license.
- At trial Mitchell sought a last-minute continuance to subpoena two witnesses (Nysir Allen and Jessica Santore) and requested the judge’s recusal based on an unrelated AG investigation; both requests were denied. Mitchell testified and asserted self-defense.
- The jury submitted clarification questions during deliberations about self-defense, duty to retreat, and use of an unregistered firearm; the trial court referred the jury back to the written instructions. Mitchell later moved to impeach the verdict based on alleged juror confusion; the court denied the motion.
- Mitchell was sentenced to an aggregate 25–50 years. He appealed, raising seven issues including denial of the continuance, admission of evidence of flight/other acts, supplemental jury instructions, attempt to impeach the jury, refusal to instruct on involuntary manslaughter, recusal denial, and discretionary sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Mitchell's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of last-minute continuance to subpoena witnesses (Allen, Santore) | Witnesses were material/exculpatory and continuance was necessary to secure testimony | Witnesses not shown essential or likely to be procured; defense not prejudiced; court properly exercised discretion | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; continuance denial proper |
| Admission of evidence of flight, hostage-taking, and Virginia arrest | Such evidence was unfairly prejudicial and not admissible | Evidence was res gestae and probative of consciousness of guilt; limiting instruction given | Affirmed — evidence admissible under Pa.R.E. 404(b) and res gestae; probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Trial court’s responses to jurors’ clarification questions | Court’s supplemental answers were misleading and prevented jury from considering manslaughter | Court reasonably asked for clarification and directed jury to existing written charge to avoid confusion/usurpation | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion in supplemental instruction; jury returned verdict soon after |
| Post-trial attempt to impeach verdict based on juror statements | Juror info showed confusion caused verdict; jury should be reconvened/arrest judgment | Juror deliberations are generally non‑admissible under Pa.R.E. 606(b); no allegation of extraneous prejudicial information or outside influence | Affirmed — motion denied; no exception to no-impeachment rule applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Norton, 144 A.3d 139 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for reviewing continuance denials)
- Commonwealth v. Gooding, 649 A.2d 722 (Pa. Super. 1994) (admission of post-offense flight/hostage-taking as res gestae and consciousness of guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Hudson, 955 A.2d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2008) (flight admissible to show consciousness of guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 543 A.2d 491 (Pa. 1988) (allowing evidence of related threats and criminal activity to complete story of the crime)
- Pratt v. St. Christopher’s Hosp., 866 A.2d 313 (Pa. 2005) (explaining the no-impeachment rule and narrow exceptions under Pa.R.E. 606)